Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/776

Damandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syska Gadget Secure - Opp.Party(s)

K.L.Kochar Adv.

31 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 776 of 26.10.2017

   Date of Decision       : 31.05.2019 

 

1.Damandeep Singh Chawla aged 40 years son of S.Darshan Singh Chawla r/o Chawla Nursing Home, Basti Jodhewal, Rahon Road, Ludhiana.

2.Harpreet Kaur aged 36 years wife of Damandeep Singh Chawla son of S.Darshan Singh Chawla r/o Chawla Nursing Home, Basti Jodhewal, Rahon Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainants

Versus

1.Syska Gadget Secure (Insurance Company) Leehan Retail Private Limited. 4. SSK Saphire Plaza Road, Pune Airport, Near Symbosis College, Pune-411014.

2.Syska Gadget Secure (Insurance Company) adjoining D.K.Tailors Dr.Heera Singh Road, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainants                    :         Complainant no.1 in person.

For OPs                         :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT 

1.                          Complainant no.1 purchased mobile set of Samsung J7 from G.K. Mobile World, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Video Market through invoice dated 16.11.2015 for amount of Rs.15,000/- and thereafter, he (complainant no.1) gifted the same to his wife i.e. complainant no.2, on marriage anniversary. This mobile set was got insured through Syska Gadget Secure having No.42029355/ SGI-1199-88769607. Insurance coverage was for risks of theft, burglary, physical damage, water and fluid damage etc. This coverage was having validity for period from 16.11.2015 to 15.11.2016. This mobile set of complainant stood damaged on 20.5.2016 at about 6:00 PM at Chandigarh, when the wife of complainant no.1 was going towards bus stand, Chandigarh after coming out of the car of her colleague. Mobile set fell down on ground and screen of same stood damaged. On lodging of claim with Ops on 21.5.2016, complainant no.1 was informed by Ops to visit local office and to lodge the claim there. After lodging of claim, complainant no.1 was provided coupon number of claim and thereafter, he visited local office near Ghumar Mandi on next date. Complainant was called upon to wait for 1-2 days for processing of claim, but on 26.5.2016, they informed the complainant that claim has been repudiated being outside the purview of the policy because same was used by the wife of complainant at the time of incidence/damage. Wife of complainant no.1 being employed in Multi National Company had to get the mobile set repaired from Kiran Mobile Care, authorized service station of Samsung Mobile phone by paying amount of Rs.6170/-. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to refund the incurred expenditure amount of repair of Rs.6170/- and to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. Interest @18% per annum also claimed.

2.                OP2 is ex-parte in this case.

3.                OP1 filed written statement, where through claiming that the terms and conditions of policy of insurance were gone through by the complainant at the time of purchase. As per those terms and conditions, any kind of damage due to negligence or intentional damage, will not be covered under the policy. Pick pocket,    negligence (for example use in beaches/forget in auto rickshaw) is not a forceful act. Intentional act means act of thrown out in anger etc. As per claim of complainant, he lodged the claim after damage to the mobile set. OP1 sought for certain documents for approval of claim, but complainant failed to submit the requisite documents and as such, claim of complainant was repudiated by finding that claim is not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. As per process for lodging of insurance claim, the customer to call on toll free customer care number 180030027090 and submit report incidence within 48 hours. Call Centre executive thereafter will guide about listing of documents namely three photocopies of the damaged hand set, photocopy of original bill; KYC documents, insurance claim form; incidence report and cancelled cheque. It is claimed that modus operandi of complainant is to file false consumer cases and harass answering OP. This complaint alleged to be false and frivolous. Due to strict proof of bill/invoice, it is admitted that complainant purchased Syska Gadget Secure policy. Complainant failed to provide the requisite documents and that is why, claim was repudiated. Other averment of complaint denied.

4.                Complainants to prove their case tendered in evidence their affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Pramod Mahadev Lakade, the authorized signatory of Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd Company) and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                When the case was posted for arguments, counsel for OP1 pleaded no instructions to appear on behalf of OP1 and as such, Op1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

7.                          Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed by complainant no.1 and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

8.                From perusal of written statement submitted by OP1 and retail invoice Ex.C1, it is made out that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant no.1 on 16.11.2015 by paying the price of Rs.15,000/-. This mobile set was got insured with Syska Gadget Secure and that is why, on lodging of claim, the same was repudiated by Ops. So, virtually providing of insurance claim for the mobile phone in question is admitted by OP1 through submitted written reply. Repudiation of claim took place because the mobile phone was used by the wife of customer as per contents of Ex.C2. No copy of terms and conditions of insurance policy produced, from which, it can be inferred that the use of phone at the time of alleged damage must be by the customer. Complainant no.2 is the wife of complainant no.1. Complainant no.1 is the purchaser of the mobile phone in question through invoice Ex.C1. Mobile phone so purchased by a husband can always be used by the wife and more over, the same was gifted to her by the husband on wedding anniversary in this case and as such, repudiation of claim on ground of use of the same by the   wife of customer at the time of incidence is highly unreasonable and improper. Through reply Ex.C3, it was conveyed to the complainant no.1 that claim does not meet eligibility criteria and that is why the same was rejected by validation and scrutiny. In Ex.C3, it is mentioned that job card will be closed and as such, it is obvious that virtually repudiation of claim is done not for non-providing of documents, but on account of use of mobile by the wife of customer. Contents of affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB of complainants establishes that mobile phone after purchase was given by complainant no.1 to his wife on the eve of wedding anniversary. So, it is a case, in which, the customer authorized his wife to                use the mobile. Such use is permissible because of close relationship. As the repudiation of claim is unreasonable and as such, certainly complainants are entitled for reimbursement of the amount of Rs.6170/- incurred as expenses through tax invoice Ex.C4 for repair of the mobile phone in question from Kiran Mobile Care, the authorized service  centre of Samsung manufacturer company. Complainants stood dragged in this litigation and as such, they suffered mental pain, agony and harassment and also bear cost of litigation. So, complaint deserves to be allowed.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to Ops to pay Rs.6170/- with interest @7% per annum w.e.f.10.06.2016(date of issue of tax invoice Ex.C4) till payment to the complainants. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favor of complainant and against OPs. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made by OPs to complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Jyotsna Thatai)                                               (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:31.05.2019

Gurpreet Sharma.