Briefly stated the facts of the instant consumer complaint is that the complainant purchased one Nokia Cell Phone being Model No.2.1 TA-1086 DS (CM Blue/Copper) bearing EMIE No.3533860903623 against Invoice No.ALCO/P 2466/18919 dated 20/08/2018 on payment of Rs.6,999/- from the O.P.-2 Complainant also paid an additional amount of Rs.1199/- to the O.P.-2 towards insurance premium in respect of subject Cell Phone and the validity of the said insurance policy was for the period of 20/08/2018 to 19/08/2019. The said cell phone damaged on 03/01/2019 within the validity period of the insurance policy, the matter was informed to O.P.-1 over telephone on 03/01/2019 and got “claim service request” No.3854876. Complainant submitted all the required documents along with photographs of the damaged cell phone through e-mail and got confirmation on 05/01/2019 from O.P.-1. On 06/01/2019 the insurance company informed the complainant that the claim must be lodged within 48 hours. On 10/01/2019 complainant got a message to the effect ‘that claim has been registered with O.Ps. and it will get back to  your petitioner within 48 hours after verifying the claim documents”. On 13/01/2019 complainant got another message that “it’s being one week since registered the claim with O.Ps. O.Ps. requested the complainant to upload the documents within next 48 hours.’ On 14/01/2019 the men of the O.Ps. advised the complainant to redeposit all necessary papers and photocopy of damaged cell phone by hand delivery to their office. But on 16/01/2019 complainant received a message where O.Ps. clearly mentioned that the claim is closed/rejected. Complainant lodged complaint before the C.A. & F.B.P. Kolkata for mediation but to no effect.  Finding no other alternative, the complainant approached before this Forum for getting reliefs.

            In spite of service of notices the O.Ps.-1 and 2 did not enter their appearance during the proceedings to contest the case. As such, the case against the O.Ps.-1 and 2 has proceeded ex-parte.

O.P.-3 has contested the case by filing W.V. contending inter alia that the consumer complaint is not maintainable in as much they did not issue any insurance policy against the smart phone purchased by the complainant. The complainant is put to strict proof in support of his allegation. They also prayed for expunging their name from the instant consumer complaint. In this context, it is pertinent to mention here that the name of the O.P.-3 has been expunged vide Order No. 07, dated 05/02/2020.

Decision with Reasons

We have travelled over the consumer complaint coupled with documents annexed thereto. We have also perused the examination-in-chief and the argument advanced by the complainant. 

In spite of receiving the service of notices O.Ps 1 and 2 did not turn up to contest the case. As such, the case has been proceeded ex-parte against them. 

The O.P 3 contested the case  by filing W.V. and challenged the maintainability of the complaint as no service had provided to the complainant by them.  In this context, it is pertinent to mention here that  the name of the O.P.-3 has been expunged vide order dated 05/02/2020 as per prayer of MA/601/2019, filed by the O.P.-3. Therefore, in absence of cotroverted evidence on record we have to rely upon the documents furnished by the complainant.

Undoubtedly the complainant purchased  one Nokia Mobile Phone Model No. 2.1 T.A-1086 DS in CM Blue/Copper being IEMI No. 353386090362316  from O.P.-2 on 20/08/2018 vide Invoice No. ALCO/2468/1819 at a price of Rs.6,999/- and it was insured with O.P.-1 on payment of Rs.1199/-. It is also undisputed that the O.P.-2 issued receipt against payment of such insurance premium of Rs.1199/- (vide Invoice No. ALCO/2486/1819 dated 20/08/2018). Validity period of insurance policy was 20.08.2018. to 19.08.2019 .  Fact remains that  the subject mobile phone was badly damaged on 03.01.2019 and the complainant  contacted  with O.P.-1 over telephone on the same day and got ‘claimed service request’ No. 3854876. 

Then the  O.P.-1 requested to the  complainant to submit all the papers and documents through e-mail  at the rate of oneassist.in along with the photograph of the said  damaged cell phone. The O.P.-1  also instructed the complainant  to communicate via happy to assist  at the rate of oneassist.in e-mail . On 05.01.2019 the O.P1 confirmed the complainant that all the required documents and photocopy of the damaged phone to be successfully uploaded and reached with their assurance of confirmation report shall be provided within 48 hours. Subsequently, on 06.01.2019 the O.P1 informed the complainant via e-mail and text message that the claim must be lodged within 48 hours from the date of the damage .The complainant submitted that during the sale of Insurance policy the O.P-1 did not provide any terms and conditions or guideline, papers of Insurance claim except bill/ invoice . The complainant further submitted that even the name of the original Insurance company was not provided by the O.Ps 1 & 2. As such after receiving the message and e-mail the complainant met with O.P1 and handed over all necessary documents to take further steps with the help of the Insurance company. But the O.P1 did not take any appropriate action. Again on 10.01.2019 at 7.00pm the complainant requested the O.Ps vide request code 16576 to consider his claim. On the same day the at 7.16pm  O.Ps replied through  mobile message that the claim has been registered with O.Ps and the complainant it will get back  within 48 hours after verifying the claim documents . On 13.01.2019 the complainant requested by the O.Ps 1&2 to upload the documents within 48 hours and on 14.01.2019 around 2.00pm one of the  man/agent of the O.P1  called the complainant over telephone to redeposit all the necessary papers , documents and the photocopy of the said damaged phone by hand delivery at the office of the O.P2 to accept the same. Same assurance was repeated on 15.01.2019 by the O.P1 .Finally on 16.01.2019 the complainant received an e-mail and message  at about 4pm from the O.P1 where it is clearly mentioned that the claim made by the complainant is closed/rejected .

         On perusal of the evidence and documents on record we find that the complainant had purchased the subject cell phone  against payment of Rs.6999/- from O.P.-2 and it was insured against payment of Rs.1199/-. Insurance policy valid for the period from 20/08/2018 to 19/08/2019. It appears from  the photocopy of the SMS dated 30/08/2018 of the O.P.-1 that  the complainant got Mobile Assist Membership covering against any theft/damage of the subject mobile phone  for the period from 20/08/2018 to 19/08/2019 and also got free pick-up & drop service for repairs. Complainant has proved his case by adducing evidence and documents on record. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the O.Ps 1&2 cannot shook of the responsibility of sufferings of the complainant. As such, the O.Ps.-1 and 2 are surely deficient in rendering service to the complainant, which tantamount to unfair trade practice too on their part.

Thus, the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

In result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the consumer case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against O.Ps1 & 2 with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only.

            O.Ps.-1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.6,999/- (cost of the cell phone) together with Rs.1,199/- which were paid to the O.Ps.-1 and 2 as insurance premium within 45 days from the date of this order along with litigation cost.

            O.Ps.-1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment and mental pain to the complainant within the stipulated period.

Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order in execution, if the OP transgress to comply the order.