| Complaint Case No. CC/17/211 |
| | | | 1. Lovepreet singh | | s/o Sh.jagdish singh, r/o H.no.203, Ward no.11,Maur khurd,Maur mandi,Distt.Bathinda |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Syska Insurance co. | | Syska insurance co.Lehan Retains ,4th Floor,Sapphire Plaza,Plot no.80,Sr.no.232,New airport Road,Near Symbosis College,Sakore Nagar,Vimin Nagar,Pune,Maharasthra. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.211 of 26-07-2017 Decided on 27-02-2018 Lovepreet Singh S/o Jagsir Singh R/o H.No.203, Ward No.11, Maur Khurd, Maur Mandi, Distt.Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Syska Insurance Company Lehan Retains Pvt. Ltd. 4th 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. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Ravinder Sharma, Advocate. Opposite parties: Ex-parte. ORDER Jarnail Singh, Member The complainant Lovepreet Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Syska Insurance Company Lehan Retains Pvt. Ltd. and other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset make Samsung J2(6) for Rs.9500/- vide bill dated 12.10.2016 from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 also made the insurance of the mobile handset at the time of its purchase vide policy No.SGI-799-45019929 (48472798) dated 12.10.2016. At that time, opposite party No.1 assured that in case of theft, damages or total loss of the mobile handset, full value will be paid by it to the complainant. At the time of issuing the insurance policy, opposite parties never supplied any terms and conditions of the insurance policy to the complainant. They issued only insurance policy. It is alleged that the mobile handset was fell down on 19.5.2017 at Maur Khurd and its screen was totally damaged. Its intimation was immediately given to opposite party No.2, it further directed the complainant to give the intimation on toll free No.1800-3002-7090 of opposite party No.1. He immediately gave intimation to opposite party No.1, it gave complaint No.91705208899. Opposite party No.1 demanded the documents relating to the mobile handset. The complainant immediately supplied all the documents as required by opposite parties and completed all the formalities. It is further alleged that the complainant many times approached opposite parties and requested them to admit his claim, but they did not listen anything and did not pay him any single penny. Due to this act and conduct of opposite parties, he has suffered from great mental tension, agony and financial loss etc. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. He has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation in addition to insurance claim of Rs.9500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Complainant was asked to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 4.1.2018, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2); photocopy of claim form, (Ex.C3); photocopy of policy card, (Ex.C4) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. The complainant purchased one mobile handset for Rs.9500/- from opposite party No.2 on 12.10.2016. Ex.C2, proves this fact. As per complainant, he lodged the claim with opposite party No.1 regarding his damaged screen, but till date nothing has been paid to him. He has also pleaded that at the time of purchase of mobile handset, opposite party No.2 made the insurance of his mobile handset, but he has not brought on record any policy premium receipt or document to prove that he got his mobile handset insured with opposite party No.1. Therefore, he has failed to prove his case. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. 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:- 27-02-2018 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
