Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/497/2017

Ranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syska Led Lights (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/497/2017
Date of Institution	:	04/07/2017
Date of Decision	:	19/01/2018

 

Ranjit Singh s/o Raghbir Singh r/o House No.189, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Syska LED Lights (P) Ltd., 1^st Floor, SCO 109, Sector 47, Chandigarh 160047 through its Manager.

2.     Harish Communication, SCO 62-63, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	None for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 8.12.2015, the complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile J1, ACE mobile phone from OP-2 and also obtained Syska Insurance package for one year, but, the mobile dealer did not give any documents for the insurance policy.  On 21.10.2016, the above mobile fell from his wife’s hand and its screen got black.  On 22.10.2016, the complainant went to the Samsung workshop and they told the repair cost to be Rs.3,700/-. Thereafter the complainant contacted the mobile dealer who told him that the mobile was not insured. As such, the complainant contacted the Syska’s helpline on 24.10.2016, but, the call was disconnected without registration of his complaint.  On 25.10.2016, the complainant registered the complaint with Syska’s helpline. However, on 27.10.2016, the complainant received Syska’s voice call with the message that his complaint was to be registered within 48 hours after the damage of device and hence the claim was rejected. Alleging that the rejection of his claim by the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 in its written statement has admitted the factual matrix.  It has been averred that the incident took place on 21.10.2016 and the complainant approached OP-1 on 25.10.2016.  There is a delay of more than 48 hours in registering the claim with OP-1 which is not covered under the policy terms and conditions.  Hence, the claim of the complainant was rejected. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2 did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.8.2017.
4.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person.
6.         The sole grouse of the complainant, in the present case, is that though the handset in question was insured with OP-1 for one year w.e.f. 8.12.2015, but, still OP-1 did not settle his claim despite registering the same. 
7.         The stand taken by OP-1 is that there was delay of more than 48 hours in registering the claim which was not covered under the policy terms and conditions. OP-2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte.
8.         The purchase of the handset as well as the insurance policy is admitted by OP-1. The contention of OP-1 is simply that there was delay of more than 48 hours on the part of the complainant in giving intimation, therefore, the claim was not covered under the policy terms and conditions. However, OP-1 has failed to prove if the alleged terms and conditions were ever communicated to the complainant.  OP-1 has not denied that a complaint was got registered with it on 25.10.2016 which, according to it, was not registered within 48 hours.  On the other hand, the complainant in para 2 & 3 of his complaint has elaborated the events in which the handset was damaged on 21.10.2016, his visit to the service centre on 22.10.2016 and the calls made to the Syska’s helpline on 24.10.2016 and 25.10.2016. We are of the view that at the time of giving the insurance cover, the companies lure the customers by painting rosy pictures of timely payment of claim, but, at the time of settling the claims, they try to find ways not to pay the claim on one or the other ground by indulging in hyper technicalities, which is so in the present case as well.  Hence, such type of approach by the insurance companies must be deprecated.
9.         Undoubtedly, the complainant used the handset in question for more than ten months.  As per terms and conditions of OP-1, in case of total loss, depreciation will be made from the invoice value of the handset and the case of the complainant falls under the category of 50% depreciation of the invoice amount.
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed qua OP-1 and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP-1 is directed as under:-

1. To immediately pay Rs.3,100/- being 50% depreciated value of the mobile handset in question alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realisation.
2. To pay Rs.4,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by OP-1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.         The complaint qua OP-2 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
19/01/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member