BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Monday the 17^th day of October, 2011

C.C.No.33/11

BETWEEN:

O.Vamsi Kumar Raju,

S/o. O.Sreedhar Raju,

E.W.S.62, Old Housing Board,

Kurnool-518 002.                                             …Complainant

                                  -Vs-

1. The Divisional Manager,

        Divisional Office IV,

        United India Insurance Company Limited,

        60, Skylare building,

        5^th floor, Nehru Place,

        NEW DELHI-110 019.

   2.  Sekhar Mobiles,

        Represented by its Proprietor,

        40-321-7A, Abdullah Khan Estate,

        Kurnool-518 001.                                 …Opposite Parties      

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri CH.Joga Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri N.Siva Prasad Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

             ORDER

  (As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)

                                              C.C. No. 33/11 

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

(a)    To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.9,700/- i.e., cost of the cell phone with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of incident to i.e., 23-10-2010 till the date of realization;

(b)    To grant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony;

(c)    To grant the cost of the complaint;

1. To grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant purchased L.G. Cell Phone Mobile BL 20V from the opposite party No.2 for Rs.9,700/- vide bill dated 27-08-2010.   A warranty card for a period of one year was also issued to complainant along with insurance coverage.  The complainant lost his cell phone on the way while he was travelling from college to Panyam, Kurnool District in an auto on 21-12-2010.  The complainant informed the same to Panyam Police and Police enquired the matter and issued the certificate on 23-12-2010.  Later the complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim on the grounds that inspite of letters and remainders he has not submitted the required papers and documents and he has withdrawn his claim by his consent letters and the opposite party No.1 closed the claim file on the reason that the complainant purchased cell phone on 27-08-2010 and policy expired on 31-03-2010.  The complainants claim is as per user guide book issued by opposite party No.2.  It is clearly stated in that book that theft coverage of LG GSM handset is for one year from the date of the purchase.  Hence the complainant is entitled to receive the claim amount from opposite party No.1.  Hence this complaint is filed. 

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and opposite party No.1 is not proper and necessary party and puts the complainant to strict proof that he purchased LG phone mobile BL 20V from opposite party No.2 for Rs.9,700/- on 27-08-2010 and a warranty card for a period of one year was issued to the complainant and insurance coverage is for a period of one year.  He has to prove that he has lost cell phone on the way while travelling from college to Panyam in an auto on 21-12-2010, and that he informed to Panyam police and obtained certificate on 23-12-2010.  No FIR is issued in this regard in respect of the complaint of the complainant.  It is true that the opposite party No.1 repudiate the claim of the complainant for reason that purchase of cell phone was on 27-08-2010 and policy expired on 31-03-2010.  As per the user book the policy coverage is with regard to theft coverage of LG GSM handset for one year from the date of purchase.  The offer is applicable an all purchases made from 1^st April 2009 to 31^st March 2010 under policy No. 040600/46/09/39/00000002 and theft registered under section 379 IPC.  So this opposite party No. 1 is not liable for any claim as desired by the complainant. The opposite party No.1 stated that the insured has taken policy from M/S.Cholamandalam insurance company after 31-03-2010 and this complaint is bad for non-joinder of correct insurer of the insured and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and puts the complainant to strict proof that he purchased cell phone BL 20V from opposite party No.2 for Rs.9,700/- on 27-08-2010 and a warranty period is one year and he has lost his cell phone on the way while travelling from college to Panyam in an auto on 21-12-2010 and he informed the same to Panyam Police and obtained a certificate on 23-12-2010.  No FIR is issued in this regard in respect of the complaint of the complainant.  The opposite party No.2 states that there is insurance coverage for the cell phone’s lost by purchasers under the policy of LG Company with M/S.Cholamandalam General Insurance Company and insurance coverage period is 7^th April 2010 to 6^th April 2011 under policy No. PBG 0016391 - 000 – 00 dated 07-04-2010.  But there are certain conditions for such policy coverage like theft coverage of LG GSM hand set for one year from the date of purchase/invoice/No other loss covered and theft registered under section 379 IPC reported under daily dairy with police FIR is covered and the claim shall have to be claimed through insurance company only.  The complainant is bad for non -   joinder of necessary party.  So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 Divisional Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool is filed. The sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 is also is filed.

 5.    Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite party No.2 adopted unfair practice?

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS 1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased a LG cell phone model BL 20V from opposite party No.2 for Rs.9,700/- vide bill dated 27-08-2010 which is marked as Ex.A1 and a  user guide book with warranty card for a period of one year was issued along with insurance coverage for a period of one year from the date of purchase, which is marked Ex.A4.  It is his further case that the lost his cell phone on the way while he was travelling from college to Panyam, Kurnool District in an auto on 21-12-2010, and the same was informed to Panyam police and police enquired and issued the certificate on 23-12-2010, which is marked as Ex.A2.  The complainant submitted the claim from along with relevant documents to the opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim under Ex.A3 dated 14-01-2011, on the grounds that the complainant has not complied with the required documents and he has withdrawn the claim by giving consent and opposite party No.1 closed the claim on the reason that the complainant purchased cell phone on 27-08-2010 and policy expired on 31-03-2010.   To avoid payment of claim of complainant opposite party No.1 repudiate the claim without any reason.  As per guidelines and proforma printed in booklet the complainant submitted the claim to opposite party No.1.  The opposite party No.2 doing the unfair trade and cheating the consumers by issuing expired insurance policies.  The learned counsel for opposite party No.1 contended that the complainant purchased cell phone on 27-08-2010, policy expired on 31-03-2010 and the policy coverage is from cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company Limited, and the policy covers only theft cases registered under section 379 IPC reported under daily dairy with police FIR is covered.   This coverage of LG GSM Hand set for one year from the date of purchase and offer applicable an all purchasers made from 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2010.  So this opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay claim amount as desired by the complainant.  The learned counsel for opposite party No.2 contended that the opposite party No.2 not issued the user guide book Ex.A4 to the complainant.  If opposite party No.2 issued Ex.A4 it should contain the seal and signature of opposite party No.2, date of purchase, and validity period, that there is insurance coverage for the cellphones lost by purchasers under the policy of LG Company with Cholamandalam General Insurance Company and Insurance covered for the period is 07-04-2010 to 06-04-2011 under policy No. PBG 0016391 – 000 – 00 dated 07-04-2010 Ex.A4 covers only theft cases registered under section 379 IPC, but the complainant lost his cell phone while travelling.  The complainant has not added the LG Company as necessary party to this claim petition.  The opposite party No.2 is not liable. 

8.     As seen from Ex.A1, it is clear that the complainant purchased the cell phone BL 20 V from opposite party No.2 for Rs.9,700/-,  but the purchase of cellphone from opposite party No.2 does not create any liability on opposite parties for loss of phone by the complainant, unless the complainant has to prove that opposite party No.2 issued warranty card along with insurance coverage and its validity period and terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the date of incident occurred.  The complainant filed Ex.A4 the user guide book to support his case.  In that book we have not found the signature and seal of opposite party No.2 in warranty card and its validity.  In the absence of signature and seal of opposite party No.2  in the warranty card it is clear that the complainant failed to establish that opposite party No.2 issued a warranty card for a period of one year from the date of purchase along with insurance coverage to the complainant. 
Opposite party No.1 filed Ex.B1 the claim form and terms and conditions of policy coverage from Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company Limited.  As per Ex.B1 it is evident that opposite party No.1 is not liable to repudiate the claim under Ex.A3 dated 14-01-2011, as the policy expires on 31-03-2010 and the complainant purchased cell phone on 27-08-2010.  As per Ex.A2 dated 23-12-2011 the certificate issued by Panyam Police stated that the complainant lost his cell phone BL 20V.  The insurance policy covered only theft cases no other los covered.  There is no evidence to show that it is a case of theft of cell phone and registered under section 379 IPC so the opposite parties are not liable for the loss of cell phone by the complainant.   There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  The complainant could not prove that the opposite party No.2 practiced unfair trade practice by issuing the expired insurance policy. Taking into consideration all the material on record we hold that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

9.     In result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the day 17^th of October, 2011.

Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

              APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil                  For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Sekhar Mobiles Purchase Bill for Rs.9,700/-

dated 27-08-2010.

Ex.A2                Certificate issued by Inspector of Police Panyam

Police Station dated 23-12-2010.
 

Ex.A3                Claim repudiation letter dated 14-01-2011.

Ex.A4                BL 20V User Guide.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1        Photo copy of Claim Form cum Claim Bill.

 Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :