DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.257 of 04-09-2017

Decided on 22-02-2018

Mukesh Kumar S/o Madan Lal R/o Near State Bank of Patiala, Ward No.7, Maur Mandi, Distt. 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. (Deleted)

.......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.Sushant Sharma, Advocate.

Opposite party No.1: Ex-parte.

Opposite party No.2: Deleted.

ORDER

Jarnail Singh, Member

1. The complainant Mukesh Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Syska Insurance Company (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one mobile handset make Samsung A510 (2016) for Rs.30,000/- vide bill dated 15.3.2016 from opposite party No.2 on 15.3.2016. At that time, opposite party No.2 also made the insurance of the mobile handset vide bill No.6810 of Rs.2399/- and policy No.SGI-2399-51748343 (39287696) dated 15.3.2016 was issued after paying the amount of policy. At the time purchase of the mobile handset and policy, opposite party No.1 assured that in case of theft or total loss of mobile handset, full value will be paid by it to the complainant.

3. It is alleged that opposite parties never supplied any terms and conditions of the insurance policy to the complainant till date. They issued the insurance policy. The mobile handset was stolen on 29.8.2016 at Maur Mandi. In this regard, an intimation was given to the police of P.S Maur Mandi on 29.8.2016. The complainant also immediately gave intimation to opposite party No.2, it further directed him 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.1608291962. Opposite party No.1 demanded the documents relating to the mobile handset i.e. photocopy of passbook, declaration letter, notarized subrogation letter, original bill on claimants name, self attested Id proofs of claimants, insurance claim form, covering letters and photographs. The complainant immediately supplied all the documents as required by opposite parties through e-mail and completed all the formalities on 5.9.2016. He also deposited the box of mobile handset, head phone and charger etc. with the service centre of Syska at Bathinda.

4. It is further alleged that after receiving the documents, opposite party No.1 sanctioned the claim to the tune of Rs.22,400/- and its intimation was given through e-mail, but so far, no amount was paid to the complainant. Thereafter opposite parties closed job card of the complainant without paying the claim amount.

5. It is also alleged that the complainant many times approached opposite parties and requested them to admit his claim, but nothing has been paid. Due to act and conduct of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and financial loss.

   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 refund of Rs.30,000/- i.e. price of mobile handset. Hence, this complaint.

6. In view of statement suffered by counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No.2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.

7. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it.

8. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

9. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit, (Ex.C1); photocopy of e-mail, (Ex.C2); photocopy of passbook, (Ex.C3); photocopy of self declaration, (Ex.C4); photocopy of form 4A, (Ex.C5); Bills, (Ex.C6 and Ex.C7); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C8); photocopy of adhaar card, (Ex.C9); photocopy of Sim closing request, (Ex.C10); photocopy of insurance claim form, (Ex.C11); photocopy of job card status, (Ex.C12) and closed the evidence.

10. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

11. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above.

12. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

13. Some facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed the complainant purchased one mobile handset for Rs.30,000/- from opposite party No.2 on 15.3.2016. Ex.C6, proves this fact. It is also not disputed that opposite party No.2 made the insurance of the mobile handset for Rs.2399/-. Ex.C7, proves this fact. The complainant has pleaded that after receiving the documents, opposite party No.1 sanctioned the claim to the tune of Rs.22,400/- and its intimation was given through e-mail, but no amount was paid to him. Copy of e-mail is brought on record as Ex.C12. This e-mail shows that an amount of Rs.22,400/- was approved by opposite party No.1, but as per complainant, this amount has not been given to him till date. Therefore, opposite party No.1 has unnecessary delayed in paying the claim to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has not come to this Forum to contest the claim of the complainant. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant.

14. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the claim of Rs.22,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 4.9.2017 till realization.

15. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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

17. 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:-

    22-02-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member