Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission.
BY - SMT.KABITA GOSWAMI (ACHERJEE) , MEMBER
The facts of the complainant’s case ,in short,are that he is a permanent resident of the above address.The complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile Phone from Great Eastern Retain Pvt. Ltd. Vide Model No. SM-G611FZKFINS, Serial No. RZ8K41H9GOM, IMEI No. 356922093428030, date of Purchase being 24.05.2018. For an extra protection of his mobile set, the complainant got insured his mobile phone against an “All Risk Policy” from the OP Company on 28.05.2018, vide his policy No. OG-19-2401-9931-00005161, with validity on and from 24.05.2018 to 23.05.2019 midnight, sum assured being Rs. 13500/- only, and final premium being Rs. 1334/-.During the validity period of such All risk Policy under the OP company, suddenly the mobile phone of the complainant got damaged on 16.03.2019.Instantly the complainant intimated the matter to the customer care centre of the OP and claimed damages covered under the policy, where he was provided a Claim ID being 20100097984. Initially the OP entertained the claim of the complainant heartily, and as per their procedure, asked him to furnish an Estimate to be done by an authorized service centre of Samsung Company, and hence one Akash Electronics, an authorized Samsung Mobile Service Centre, at Chaitanyapur, Haldia prepared an Estimate on 16.03.2019 to the tune of Rs. 12825/-, which is well covered under the policy of the OP. The OP company took a dilatory tactics by not paying the policy amount to the complainant till date.The complainant has made several requests and reminders, both verbally and in writing to the Ops Company, about it paid no heed.The complainant even knocked the doors of Hon’ble Consumer Affairs & FBP department of Purba Medinipur, where a Mediation was arranged for by the Assistant Director on 16.05.2019, but the OP, being duly notified through post and even requested through phone calls from the said office, did not bother to turn up and remained absent on the stipulated day.A smart phone like that of the impugned mobile phone of the complainant was quite an essential medium for the complainant regarding communication the smoothness of his work, but being a bona fide purchaser of policy and consumer under the OP, the complainant has been forced to suffer a severe loss, harassment, illegality and mental pain due to gross negligence and severe deficiency in rendering service by the OP.The cause of action of this case was started on 16.03.2019 since the damage of phone occurred and it continued and finally occurred on 16.05.2019, when the OP denied and evaded the Mediation process, within the period of warranty.Finding no other alternative the complainant has filed this Case before the Ld. Commission praying for the following reliefs.
Notice was duly issued and served upon the Op. After service of notice the OP did not appear before this Commission nor filed any written version within statutory period. Hence, the case proceeded ex-parte against the Op.
Points for determination are:
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant and ex-parte evidence adduced along with documents.
Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Op. It is further evident that the complainant being an insured has alleged deficiency in service against the OP.The bundle of facts indicate that this case is maintainable in present form in law.
The OP is an authorized insurance company of the Samsung which is a manufacturing company of mobile handset. It appears that since 23.05.2019 i.e. within the warranty period, the complainant has an issue with the ‘display spot’ of said mobile handset which the service provider i.e. OP Insurance acknowledged on 16.03.2019 with remarks ‘Said LCD Spot’ and major symptom – ‘liquid damage’ by determining and approximate estimated cost/charge of Rs. 12,825/- to repair.
On scanning the unchallenged evidence on record, it appears at a glance the said handset is not only suffering from display/LCD spot but also an internal liquid damage is detected in the mobile handset without any damage in the LED screen or in the mobile handset which is nothing but a manufacturing or mechanically defect without any breaking .Therefore, the warranty period should cover with insurance this mechanical fault as noted above which caused damage without any external interference or influence. The consumer has not violated/breached any of the terms and conditions. So, this genuine handset should be repaired free of charges by the manufacturer insurer or its authorized service centre Akash Electronics and Bajaj Allianz being a service provider of the product manufacturer has failed to either repair or to replace the product or to inform the product manufacturer instead it harassed the complainant by raising or determining the estimate cost of Rs. 12825/- on its own within the warrantee period without any basis or cogent reason which compelled the complainant to suffer mental pain and agony.
Moreover, the OP has not come to file any petition towards proper analysis or test report by the complainant from the appropriate laboratory with a direction to determine whether the said mobile damaged or not.
Therefore, from the unchallenged evidence of complainant clearly transpires that there are elements of gross negligence and deficiency in service by the OP.
Now, coming to the matter of relief the OP can not get absolved from the mischief of negligence, arrangement and deficiency in service. So, it would just and proper if we direct the OP to pay of Rs. 12,825/- along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of this case till realization in the nature of compensation and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the Complainant
Accordingly, both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Thus, the complainant’s case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the CC-430 of 2019 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the OP.
The OP is hereby directed to pay of Rs. 12,825/- along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. 31.07.2019 till realizationin the nature of compensation and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the Complainant.
The OP will comply the above order within 45 days from the date of this order, in default, the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to the complainant and OP free of cost.
