BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 57 of 2017
Date of Institution : 9.3.2017
Date of Decision : 18.01.2018.
Dr. Neeraj Hissaria C/o Babylon Hospital, Suraj Cinema Complex, Dabwali Road Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Syska Insurance Company, 4th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra-411014 through its Managing Director.
- Syska Insurance Company 4th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S No.232, New Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra-411014 through its General Manager.
- Wadhwa Mobile Care, Near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Partner.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. J.D. Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Opposite party no.3 exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is a doctor and having a mobile to give consultation and advise to his patients free of cost. That the complainant had purchased Apple I-6 mobile of Grey Colour from opposite party no.3 on 21.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.43,000/- and at the time of purchase of said mobile, the op no.3 also issued insurance policy of ops no.1 and 2 and insured the mobile set of the complainant for any sort of damages or loss. It is further averred that said policy commenced w.e.f. 21.12.2015 to 20.12.2016. That on 8.12.2016, the complainant was driving a motor cycle and the said mobile set fell down from the bike and as a result of which the screen of the mobile set got damages. The complainant immediately on 9.12.2017 (actual date is 9.12.2016) informed about the said damage to the customer care of ops no.1 and 2 and on the instructions of customer care department of ops no.1 and 2, the complainant uploaded the required documents on the same day and also sent original documents by post to ops no. 1 and 2. That the op no.2 duly acknowledged the claim of the complainant being within the period of insurance and told the complainant that some representative of their company will come and pick the damaged mobile set from the complainant. On 27.12.2016, the said mobile set was picked by ops no.1 and 2 from the complainant. After few days the complainant contacted the customer care of ops no.1 and 2 to know about the status of his insurance claim towards damaged mobile set and they intimated that the claim of the complainant will be resolved within 15 days. But till date the claim of the complainant has not been resolved. It is further submitted that the said mobile set was picked by the authorized agent on 27.12.2016 and after three months the said mobile set has not been returned to the complainant after removing the damaged defect of the mobile. The said mobile is still lying with the ops no.1 and 2. That as per the terms and conditions of the ops no.1 and 2, the claim had to be lodged within 48 hours of damage or loss and accordingly the claim has been lodged by the complainant within the stipulated period as mentioned in the terms and conditions. It is further averred that complainant got served a legal notice upon ops on 31.1.2017 and same has been received by ops no.1 and 2 but till date the claim of the complainant has not been settled. The complainant is regularly talking with the ops to settle his claim and to return his mobile set after removing the defect but all the ops in connivance with each other are lingering on the matter with one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections of maintainability; locus standi estopopal and that complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties. The answering ops are only the facilitator of the scheme under name and style of Syska Gadget secure and insurance cover provided by the New India Assurance Company Ltd and that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. It is further submitted that the complainant had intimated to answering ops about damage to mobile and answering ops had forwarded the claim to insurance company alongwith estimate prepared by B2X service solution India Pvt. Ltd. As per estimate the insurance company had approved the amount. Thereafter, the mobile set was repaired by B2X service solution India Pvt. Ltd. and same is delivered after repair to complainant through B2X service solution India Pvt. ltd. The answering ops had provided the best services to the complainant being a facilitator and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering ops. It is worth to mention here that the insurance terms and conditions were delivered at the time of purchase of insurance scheme in form of booklet and in form of soft copy at the time of activation of the mobile for insurance scheme. All other remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, copy of pickup receipt Ex.C4, copy of email Ex.C5, copy of current status Ex.C6, remittance advice Ex.C7, copy of email Ex.C8 and copy of order Ex.C9. Ld. counsel for ops no.1 and 2 made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of ops no.1 and 2 be read in their evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of the complainant that complainant had purchased one Apple I-6 mobile of grey colour from opposite party no.3 on 21.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.43,000/-. It is also proved fact on record that op no.3 also issued insurance policy of ops no.1 and 2 and insured the mobile set of the complainant for any sort of damages or loss. It is also proved fact on record that the said mobile set fell down when the complainant was driving the motor cycle on 8.12.2016 and due information was given to ops no.1 and 2 on 9.12.2016 and on the instructions of customer care department of ops no.1 and 2, the complainant uploaded the required documents on the same day and also sent original documents by post to ops no.1 and 2. The mobile set of the complainant remained with service center of ops no.1 and 2 for a period of about 10 months and the complainant remained deprived of facility of the mobile and had to suffer a lot being a professional. Though the mobile was handed over to the complainant after a period of 10 months but ops cannot escape from their legal liability to make good of the loss which the complainant has suffered due to non availability of the mobile. Learned counsel for complainant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Krishan Kumar Sahu vs. Manager, Jai Shri Electronics and others, 2010 (1) CPR 149.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 has strongly contended that after receiving the mobile from the complainant, same was put under process of repairing though it took some time to repair but however ops no.1 and 2 handed over the mobile set to the complainant after due repairing the same without any cost to the complainant without any further loss of time. There is no lapse and deficiency in service on the part of ops no.1 and 2.
8. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 and also placed on record copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, copy of pickup receipt Ex.C4, copy of email Ex.C5, copy of current status Ex.C6, remittance advice Ex.C7, copy of email Ex.C8 and copy of order Ex.C9. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 did not even produce any affidavit on record. It is undisputed fact between the parties that mobile of the complainant was damaged in an accident which occurred due to fall of the mobile from the motor cycle and the mobile was handed over to ops no.1 and 2. The mobile was got repaired by ops no.1 and 2 and same was handed over to the complainant and this fact has not been denied by learned counsel for complainant during the course of arguments.
9. The only dispute between the parties is qua the amount of compensation. The mobile has been duly repaired by ops without any cost and has been handed over to the complainant. No doubt, complainant has suffered due to non availability of the mobile but however the complainant has never deposed as such while furnishing affidavit that the delay in repairing and handing over the mobile was voluntarily and deliberately on the part of ops no.1 and 2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be in the fitness of things if a reasonable amount is awarded as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
10. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- (Rs. Four thousand) to the complainant as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 9.3.2017 till actual payment. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:18.1.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
