DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 174 of 21-06-2017

Decided on : 14-03-2018

Sanjiv Kumar aged about 44 years, S/o Hem Raj, R/o Ward No. 6, Near HDFC Bank, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda. …...Complainant

Versus

1. Syska Insurance Company Lehan Retains Pvt. Ltd., 4^th Floor Sapphire Plaza, Plot No. 80, Sr. No. 232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar Viman Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra)

2. M/s. Bhagwati Telecom, Thana Road, Maur Mandi, through its Prop.

   .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Vipin Sharma, Advocate.

For the opposite parties : Sh. N S Narula, Advocate, for OP No. 1.

OP No. 2 exparte.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. Sanjiv Kumar, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Syska Insurance Company Lehan Retains Pvt. Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties').

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Mobile Set Make Samsung J5 on 25-6-2016 for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- from opposite party No. 2 vide Bill No.7287 dated 25-6-2016. The opposite party No. 2 also made insurance of the said mobile at the time of its purchase vide policy No. SGI-1199-66256780 (95024198) dated 25-6-2016. The opposite party No. 1 assured that in case of theft or total loss of mobile, full value will be paid by opposite party No.1 to the customer/complainant. The opposite parties never supplied any terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy to the complainant till date. They issued only insurance policy.

3. It is revealed that mobile was stolen on 17-11-2016 at Maur Mandi. Intimation was given to police of PS Maur Mandi on 19-11-2016. The intimation was immediately given to opposite party No. 2 who further directed the complainant to give intimation on toll free No. 1800 3002 7090 of opposite party No. 1. Accordingly, complainant immediately gave intimation to opposite party No. 1 vide complaint No. 1611184834. The opposite party No. 1 demanded documents relating to said mobile i.e. cancelled cheque, copy of bill of mobile, SIM block certificate, police intimation letter, insurance claim form, self attested ID proofs of claimants, covering letters etc., and photographs. The complainant immediately supplied all documents as required through mail and completed all the formalities.

4. It is alleged that complainant many times approached the opposite parties and requested them to admit his claim, but they did not listen anything and did not pay single penny to him till date. They issued email letter vide which claim of the complainant was rejected without any reason.

5. It is pleaded that due to non payment of total claim, the complainant has suffered mental agony and pains. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to refund of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 22,000/- as cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint.

6. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. As such, it was proceeded against exparte.

7. The opposite party No. 1 appeared though counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 1 raised legal objections that complainant has filed the complaint on wrong facts and by misusing the provisions of 'Act'. That the complainant has got no cause of action or locus-standi to file the complaint. That the complainant has concealed true and material facts from this Forum.

8. As per opposite party, true facts are that after purchase of mobile, complainant got it insured. The terms and conditions of the same were supplied to the complainant. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was bound to intimate and submit the required documents within 30 days. In this case, the complainant although informed within 30 days but he did not supply the required documents within stipulated period from the date of loss. The mobile was allegedly stolen on 17-11-2016. The complainant failed to perform in accordance with the policy. As such, he is not entitled to get any benefit or compensation or claim. He is estopped from filing the complaint. It is also mentioned that complainant used the mobile in rash and negligent manner due to which it has been stolen. As such, the complainant is not entitled to any claim.The last legal objection is that the complaint is totally false and has been filed by misusing the provisions of the 'Act'.

9. On merits, the opposite party has controverted all the material averments and reiterated its stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above.

10. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 13-9-2016 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Insurance Card (Ex. C-2), photocopy of Job Card (Ex. C-3), photocopy of cancelled cheque (Ex. C-4), photocopy of VAT Invoice (Ex. C-5), photocopy of self-declaration (Ex. C-6), photocopy of Adhar Card (Ex. C-7), photocopy of SIM block confirmation letter (Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-9), photocopy of intimation letter (Ex. C-10), photocopy of Claim Form (Ex. C-11), photocopy of deed of Indemnity & Subrogation (Ex. C-12) and photocopy of message reg. required documents (Ex. C-13 & Ex. C-14).

11. The opposite party No. 1 failed to produce any evidence. As such, evidence of opposite party No. 1 was closed by order dated 1-3-2018.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

13. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their version as taken in their respective pleadings and as detailed above.

14. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

15. The complainant has claimed that he got insured his mobile. It is not disputed by the opposite party. The complainant has also revealed that mobile was stolen on 17-11-2016. Ex. C-3 proves that the matter was reported to opposite party No. 1 on 18-11-2016. The opposite party No. 1 vide message (Ex. C-14) required certain documents (8 Nos.). Ex. C-3 also proves that all the documents as mentioned in Ex. C-14 were received by the opposite party.

16. The opposite party No. 1 has alleged that complainant failed to complete the formalities within 30 days. The intimation was given to opposite party No. 1 on the next day. There is nothing on record to prove that complainant was required to complete the formalities within 30 days and failing which he was not entitled to claim. Moreover, the evidence proves that complainant has already submitted documents as required by the opposite party. In these circumstances, the version of opposite party No. 1 is not acceptable. Admittedly, the opposite party No. 1 has not settled the claim. It amounts to deficiency in service.

17. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with cost of Rs. 3,000/- against opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to settle and pay the claim of mobile in question to complainant as per terms and conditions of insurance.

18. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party No. 1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

19. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

20. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. As there is shortage of postal stamps, parties can also collect the copy of order personally/through counsel against receipt. File be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    14-03-2018

    (M.P.Singh Pahwa )

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh )

    Member

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member