DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 31^st day of December, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.122/2009

Priya Prasad,

W/o.Prasad,

Banglala parambu,

K.T.C Junction,

Kanjikode,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

The Manager,

UniverCell,

Univercell Telecom India Pvt Ltd.,

T.B.Road, Near Alukkas Jewellery,

Palakkad. - Opposite party

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

The facts of the complaint in brief is as follows:

Complainant purchased a Nokia mobile phone from the opposite party on 19/01/09. Mobile set was having theft and damage insurance coverage. As the coverage was in force the complainant lost the mobile phone in a journey. A complaint was lodged before the Police. They issued a certificate acknowledging the receipt of the petition regarding the loss of mobile phone. Complainant claimed the benefit of insurance from the opposite party. But the opposite party has not so far made any positive attempt to settle the grievance of the complainant. Hence the complaint.

2.Opposite party was set ex-parte.

3. Evidence adduced by the complainant consists of affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant.

4. Now the issues for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. If so what is the relief complainant is entitled to?

5. Issues 1 and 2:

The specific case of the complainant is that she purchased a Nokia mobile handset from the opposite party. The set has an insurance coverage for the loss or theft of the handset. Complainant lost the said mobile phone during the coverage of the policy and claim form was preferred to the opposite party. But the opposite party has not settled the issue.

6. The case of the complainant is made out from Ext.A1 to A3 documents. As per Ext.A1 it is seen that an amount of Rs.4,815/- was collected for the set. It also includes mobile theft and damage insurance coverage. Details regarding the policy is not there in Ext.A1 document. Since opposite party has not appeared and adduced any evidence contrary to the one adduced by the complainant, we are of the view that complaint be allowed.

7. In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,815/- (Rupees Four thousand eight hundred and fifteen only) being the value of the hand set together with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

8. Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of December, 2009

Sd/- Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of Invoice No.P.K.PD/3505 dt.19/01/2009

Ext.A2 – Copy of certificate issued by SI of Police, North Police Station, Palakkad.

Ext.A3 – Copy of claim form submitted by complainant to opposite party

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Costs (Allowed

Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings