DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 239 of 17-08-2017

Decided on : 14-03-2018

Sohan lal aged 40 years S/o Sh. Prem Chand, R/o Gokul Nagari, Maur Khurd, 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.(Deleted vide order dated 24-8-2017)

   .......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 deleted.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. Sohan Lal, 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 Edge on 10-8-2016 for a sum of Rs.59,000/- from opposite party No.2 vide Bill No.7564 dated 10-8-2016. The opposite party No. 2 also made insurance of said mobile vide policy No. SGI-2399-90768721 (22146060) dated 10-8-2016 at the time of its purchase. The opposite party No. 1 assured that in case of theft, damages or total loss of mobile, full value will be paid. The opposite party No. 1 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 said mobile fell down on 4-8-2017 at Maur Mandi and its screen was totally damaged. Intimation was immediately given to opposite party No. 2 who further directed him to give intimation on toll free No. 1800 3002 7090 of opposite party No. 1. The complainant immediately gave intimation to opposite party No.1 vide complaint No. 91708059972 dated 5-8-2017. The opposite party No. 1 demanded documents. The complainant immediately supplied all documents as required by opposite party No.1 through emails and also 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 any single penny to him till date without any reason.

5. It is alleged that due to non-payment of total claim, complainant has suffered mental agony and pains. For these suffering he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in addition to refund of Rs. 59,000/- and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

6. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the complainant, name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted vide order dated 24-8-2017.

7. The opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 1 raised legal objections that the complainant has filed complaint on wrong facts and by misusing the provisions of 'Act'. The mobile was purchased on 10-08-2016. The guarantee period was to expire on 09-08-2017. Few days before the expiry of the guarantee period, the complainant prepared false story regarding fall of mobile on 04-08-2017, with malafide intention to get new mobile from opposite party No. 1. 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 parties true facts are that after purchase of mobile, complainant got it insured the same and the terms and conditions of the same were supplied to the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was bound to intimate and submit the required documents within 30 days. The complainant although informed within 30 days, he also uploaded the documents. Thereafter he was asked to deposit the mobile at the service station, but he failed to deposit the same, due to which further steps could not be taken. The case of the complainant could not be further processed due to his own negligence. The mobile was allegedly fallen on 04-08-2017 but the complainant failed to perform in accordance with the policy. He failed to deposit the mobile with the service centre. He is not entitled to get any benefit or compensation or claim.

9. It is also alleged that complainant used the mobile in rash and negligent manner due to which it has been fallen. The complainant is not entitled for any claim.The last legal objection is that the complaint is totally false and has been filed by misusing the provisions of the 'Act'.

10. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 has controverted all the material averments and reiterated its stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above.

11. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 6-11-2017 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Insurance Card (Ex. C-2), photocopy of Invoice (Ex. C-3), photocopy of current status (Ex. C-4), photocopy of claim form (Ex. C-5), photocopy of photo of mobile (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7), photocopy of invoice dated 10-8-2016 (Ex. C-8), photocopy of e-mail (Ex. C-9), photocopy of on-line tracking (Ex. C-10) and photocopy of Job Card/tracking status (Ex. C-11).

12. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 30-1-2018 of Pramod Lakade (Ex. OP-1/1) and closed the evidence.

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

14. Learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as set up in their respective pleadings and as detailed above.

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

16. Admittedly the complainant purchased mobile on 10-8-2016 and got it insured from opposite party. The version of complainant is that mobile was fallen on 4-8-2017 and intimation was given to opposite party. The opposite party has also not denied this fact.

17. The opposite party has alleged that complainant failed to complete the formalities. As such, the matter/case could not be proceeded further. The complainant has placed on record copy of track/current status (Ex. C-4) which contains list of documents uploaded. There is column of 'short fall' but nothing is recorded in this column. The opposite party has also not revealed any particular document which is not uploaded by complainant.

18. The opposite party has also not produced any document to prove that complainant was required to upload the documents within specified period failing which the claim was to be rejected. In these circumstances, the action of the opposite party by not settling the matter amounts to deficiency in service.

19. Resultantly this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party. The opposite party is directed to do the needful as per terms and conditions of policy.

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

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

22. 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