| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.500 of 04-10-2016 Decided on 13-02-2019 Khushhal Singla aged about 25 years S/o Ashok Kumar Singla, Factory Road, Geeta Bhawan Gali, Rampura Phul. ........Complainant Versus 1.Managing Director, Syska, Lehran Retails Pvt Ltd., 4th Floor, Sapphie Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Rd, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Pune District, Maharashtra-411001. 2.Mobile Palace (Samsung Smart Care) Near PNB Bank, Bank Bazaar, Rampura Phul, through its Prop/Manager. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Manisha, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Navneet Kataria, Advocate. For opposite party No.1: Sh.N.S Narula, Advocate. Opposite party No.2: Ex-parte. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Khushhal Singla (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Managing Director and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset Samsung Galaxy for Rs.14,900/- vide invoice No.7546 dated 31.10.2015 from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 also represented to be authorized dealer/agent of opposite party No.1 for insurance of the mobile handset and offered Syska Gadget Secure Blanket Cover for devices and assured that in case of any damage/theft/stolen/lost of the mobile handset, opposite party No.1 will pay the claimed amount immediately on payment of Rs.999/-. Opposite party No.2 also issued card of opposite party No.1 to the complainant. On scratching the same, as per instructions, it was found policy bearing No.67514915. Opposite party No.2 noted the same in its record. It is alleged that due to ill-luck, the mobile handset was stolen at Golden Temple Amritsar from his pocket in the crowd on 13.6.2016. The complainant informed the Incharge, PP Galiara, Amritsar. He immediately lodged the claim with opposite party No.1 and also informed opposite party No.2. Since then, he is contacting opposite parties, but to no purpose. He is entitled to disbursement of claim of Rs.14,900/- i.e. value of lost mobile handset and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. with interest in addition to Rs.1100/- as cost of complaint. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Vide order dated 17.11.2016. The complainant has tendered into evidence copy of card, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2); photocopy of pamphlet, (Ex.C3); photocopy of police information letters, (Ex.C4); photocopy of application, (Ex.C5) and his affidavit, (Ex.C6). Thereafter case was posted for arguments. Subsequently, Hon'ble State Commission has accepted the appeal preferred by opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 has appeared before this Forum to contest the complaint. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the legal objections that the complaint has been filed on wrong facts. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. Earlier also, he lodged the claim with opposite party No.1 for defect in the mobile handset due to fall on 22.2.2016 and same was paid by opposite party No.1. Now, the complainant has again filed this complaint claiming insurance compensation on account of the loss of the mobile handset. He has not given any information regarding theft of the mobile handset to opposite party No.1 within the statutory period of 30 days. As such, as per and regulations of opposite party No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any claim. Moreover he used the mobile handset in rash and negligent manner. Due to this, the mobile handset was earlier destroyed due to fall. Now, the mobile handset has been alleged to have been stolen. The complainant again and again is lodging the claim. As such, he is not entitled for any claim. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset and got it insured from opposite party No.1. No claim was lodged within 30 days. As such, the complainant is not entitled for any claim. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. After filing written version, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 4.8.2017, (Ex.C7) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoj Khurana dated 17.10.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of job card, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of terms and conditions of policy, (Ex.OP1/3) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that it is admitted by opposite party No.1 that the complainant got his mobile handset insured. The complainant has placed on record copy of report, (Ex.C4), which proves that the mobile handset was stolen on 13.6.2016. He has also placed on record application, (Ex.C5), which further proves loss of the mobile handset. Opposite party No.1 has alleged that the complainant was negligent and that he has also taken relief in the earlier complaint, but the insurance claim cannot be denied on these grounds. Even there is no such condition in the policy. Moreover there is nothing to show any negligence on the part of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has submitted that as per policy terms and conditions, (Ex.OP1/3), claimant was to lodge the claim within 30 days from incident. The complainant has not lodged any claim with opposite party No.1. The claim is not to be settled only on the intimation of theft to the police. The categorical version of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant has not lodged the claim. There is no evidence by the complainant to prove that he lodged the claim with opposite party No.1. Although, in the affidavit, (Ex.C7), the complainant has pleaded that immediately, the claim was lodged with opposite party No.1 and he informed opposite party No.2 vide complaint No.1607124796, but this fact was not pleaded in the complaint. There is nothing on record to prove this fact. As the complainant has himself committed the default by failing to lodge the claim within the stipulated period, therefore, he cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admitted facts are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset and got it insured with opposite party No.1. He has alleged that the mobile handset was stolen on 13.6.2016 and opposite party No.1 has failed to reimburse the claim. The categorical version of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant has failed to lodge the claim within the stipulated period of 30 days. Copy of terms and conditions, (Ex.OP1/3) also prove that the claimant was required to lodge the claim within 30 days and failing which, the claim request will be considered withdrawn. The complainant has produced on record copies of report to the police and application moved to the police, but no document is brought on record to prove that he has lodged the claim within the stipulated period with opposite party No.1. Of-course, in subsequent affidavit, (Ex.C7), the complainant has deposed that he has lodged the claim immediately. This fact is not mentioned in the complaint. No other document is on file to prove this fact. Therefore, conclusion is that he has not lodged the claim with opposite party No.1. As such, he cannot allege any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. 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 and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 13-02-2019 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Manisha) Member
| |
