Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/554/2016

Avani Atreya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syska Gadget Secure - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	554/2016
Date of Institution	:	04.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	07.10.2016

 

                                       

                                               

Avani Atreya, # 219/1, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Syska Gadget Secure, 4^th Floor,  Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbosis College, Sakora Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra).

 

2.     M/s Mobile Buzz, SCO-89-90-91, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

 OPs exparte

                 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased a new Apple 5S phone from OP No.2 for Rs.22,500/- vide invoice dated 29.05.2016. On advice of OP No.2, she also get it insured with OP No.1 for all types of losses.  It has further been averred that the tag line of the insurance company was “agar appka phone gir jaaye toot jaaye, kho jaaye, chori ho jaaye…., you will get the claim from the insurance company”.  According to the complainant, on 01.07.2016, she went to the market of Sector 37-D, Chandigarh with her cousin on the Activa Scooter to buy something. As it was raining, she parked her activa in the Parking Area of Market, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh  and put mobile in the dicky of the scooter so that it might not wet.  After returning, she found that her phone was missing from the dicky of the scooter. According to the complainant, someone had opened the lock of the dicky with some instrument and then closed the same forcibly.   Finally, she made the complaint with the police station on 02.07.2016 regarding the missing of the phone.  Subsequently, she lodged the claim vide complaint No.1607035721 dated 03.07.2016 and submitted all the desired documents for processing the claim.  It has further been averred that the claim was rejected due to validation and scrutiny as the mobile was lost and there was no forceful/violent act was involved.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Despite due service through registered post, OPs failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.09.2016.
3.         We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         In her exparte evidence, the complainant tendered her duly sworn detailed affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint.  The complainant has also placed on record a copy of e-mail dated 25.05.2016 sent by OP No.1 i.e. Syska Gadget Secure whereby the claim was rejected due to validation and scrutiny as the mobile was lost and there was no forceful/violent act was involved. In our considered view, the rejection of the claim on the ground that there was no forceful entry/violent act was involved is totally bereft of any merit and the same is held to be illegal & unjustified because for every instance of theft/loss of small article like the mobile phone, the use of forceful entry/violent act, is not at all said to be a necessary ingredient because the theft/loss of any article like the mobile phone in question can very well be happened without use of any forceful entry/violent act.  Furthermore, the insured cannot be made to suffer for the loss/theft of the insured article, which has occurred without use of any forceful entry/violent act by the unscrupulous & deceitful persons.   Moreover, OP No.1 did not appear despite due service and as such it seems that it does not want to say in its defence and admits the averments as made in the complaint.  
5.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under ;-

1. To pay Rs.22,500/-  i.e. the price of the mobile handset in question after making necessary deduction towards depreciation, if any, as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.1,100/-  as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by OP No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

6.         The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07.10.2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER