Haryana

StateCommission

A/121/2017

SUBODH JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYSKA GADGET SECURE LEEHAN RETAIL PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAM PAL VERMA

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                First Appeal No.           :         121 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution        :         31.01.2017

                                                Date of Decision                   :         26.09.2017

 

 

Subodh Jain Son of Sh. S.K. Jain resident of H. No. 115, Sector-14, Sonepat.

 

          …… Appellant.

 

Versus

 

1. Syska Gadget Secure Leehan Retail Pvt. Ltd., 29, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, near Madhuban Hotal, Pune-411001 through its Manager.
2. Arora Enterprises Gandhi Chowk, Sonepat through its Prop.
3. New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Head Office Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-40001 through its Director/Manager.
4. Avinash C/o SSK Infotech Plot No. 521, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon (Hr.) through its Branch Manager. 

……. Respondents.

 

CORAM:             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Presiding Member.

 

Present:              Mr. R.P. Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

None for respondent No.1.

                             Mr. J.P. Nahar, Advocate for the respondent No. 3.

 

O R D E R

 

 

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

                             The present appeal has been decided by me in view of the order passed by Hon’ble President of the State Commission conveyed to me vide Endst. No. 444 dated 03.03.2017 whereby I have been authorized to decide the cases individually in Additional Bench-II.

                             This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by appellant/complainant against the respondents/OPs has been allowed.  It was observed by the Learned District Forum as under:-                    

          “Thus, we direct the respondent no.3 to make the payment of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said order shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.”

                             The brief facts of the case are that on 11.4.2015 Subodh Jain-Complainant purchased iphone 6 for Rs.53500/- from New Delhi and got insured form respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 by paying Rs.1999/- on 13.4.2015. On 17.5.2015 the said phone was stolen. The complainant informed respondent no.1 as well as police on the same day and lodged FIR No.160 dated 19.5.2015 u/s 379 IPC with Police Station Civil Line, Sonepat. Complainant has submitted all the original documents, but respondent No.1 has rejected the claim without any sufficient reason & cause and that amounts to grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

Upon notice OPs/ respondent No.1, 2 and 3 appeared and filed their reply separately. Respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that the claim was rejected as the claim does not fall under the purview of the policy. As per version of the complainant, the mobile was stolen, but there is no forceful/violent act is involved and hence the claim is not admissible as per policy terms and conditions. Respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that the phone in question was not purchased from the respondent no.2, but Syska Gadget secure pack was sold by the respondent no.2. The complainant had told the respondent no.2 that he had made a complaint for stolen device, which is not covered as per policy. As per terms and conditions only accidental damage and theft is covered. Respondent no.3 in its reply has submitted that the loss of the complainant is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. Only theft and burglary is covered under the policy. Mobile phone of the complainant is lost, which is neither theft nor burglary.

                             Upon notice respondent No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 8.7.2016.  

                             On appraisal of the pleadings of the complainant and evidence adduced on record, the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and observed as noticed in the opening para of this order.

Aggrieved with the impugned order, appellant-complainant has come up in appeal.  Hence this appeal.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.  I did not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely, and therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal and going through the case file.

I have heard the learned counsel for appellant and respondents and perused the case file thoroughly.

The learned counsel for appellant/complainant has contended that District Forum erred in appreciating the fact and awarded Rs.40,000/- only but as per policy IDV of the phone was Rs.53,500/-. The counsel for the appellant further contended that District Forum has not taken into consideration that once it has been proved that the mobile phone of the complainant has been stolen on 17.05.2015 and he has lodged the FIR on the same day with police. The phone of the complainant was insured with the respondent No.3 and was covered within the conditions of the policy. Then the District Forum should have awarded the IDV of the phone but the District Forum did not consider this fact and wrongly awarded Rs.40,000/- in place of Rs.53,500/-  and prayed for enhancement in compensation.

On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.3 has contended that only theft and burglary is covered under the policy, but the Mobile phone of the complainant is lost, which is neither theft nor burglary. The loss of the complainant is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. The argument raised by the counsel of the respondent No.3 that the appellant has received an amount of Rs.40,000/- as per orders of the District Forum dated 27.10.2016 vide cheque No. 004740 dated 29.11.2016 and prayed for dismissal of the appeal of the appellant.

 I have gone through the impugned order and taken into consideration facts and circumstances of the case as well as record of the District Forum. The IDV of the phone was Rs.53,500/-. 

In view of the above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order is modified with the direction to the opposite party/respondent No.3 to pay the remaining amount of IDV of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.53,500/- after deducting Rs.40,000/- already paid to the appellant/complainant along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and Rs.2500/- for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses to the appellant/complainant.

The impugned order is modified on the terms indicated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                      

Announced                                                                                 Diwan Singh Chauhan,

26.09.2017                                                                      Presiding Member

                                                                                 Addl. Bench-IInd