BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM.
KAMRUP
C.C.No.82/2016
Present:
I) Shri A.F.A.Bora,M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S -President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc,Former Dy
Director, FCS & CA - Member
Shri Hintumoni Saikia - Complainant
S/0 Shri Pitambar Saikia
H.No.2, Barnali Path, Japorigog, Nandanpur
District: Kamrup,(Metro) Assam-781005
-vs-
I) The MobileStore Ltd.
Ananda Bhavan, Lachit Nagar, G.S.Road
Guwahati, Kamrup (M)
Pin-781007, Represented by the Manager
II) The National Insurance Co.Ltd.
Bhangagorh, Opp.Hub Mall
G.S.Road,Guwahati, Kamrup -781005
Represented by the Chief Regional Manager
III) Edeweiss Insurance Brokers Ltd.
Unit No. 102,10th floor, Sakhar Bhawan
230, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400002. -Opposite party
IV) Netsol Associates -Proforma Opposite party
1st Floor, Nilgiri Mansion
Near Satsang Vihar, G.S.Road,
Guwahati-781005, Assam
Appearance
Learned advocate Mr.Palashmoni Talukdar for the complainant
None appeared for the opposite parties.
Date of argument:- 26.2.2020
Date of judgment: - 9.6.2020
JUDGMENT
1) This is a complaint filed by one Sri Hintumoni Saikia , son of Pitambar Saikia of Japorigog, Guwahati, Kamrup. The complainant filed this petition against the opposite parties namely, The MobileStore Ltd.Ananda Bhavan, Lachit Nagar, G.S.Road, The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Bhangagorh, Opp.Hub Mall G.S.Road, Guwahati and Edeweiss Insurance Brokers Ltd.Unit No. 102,10th floor, Sakhar Bhawan 230, Nariman Point, Mumbai u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, opp.party No. 1 is a retail shop dealing with sale of mobile handset and accessories . The opp.party No.2 is a public sector Insurance company and opp.party No.3 is the Insurance Broking agent. The opp.party No.4 is the authorized service centre of repairing of “Redmi” mobile handset .
2) This forum after receiving the complaint registered a case and issued notices upon the opp.parties. Later on, the complainant withdrawn the proceeding against opp.party no. 4 and accordingly his name was struck down. The process upon opp.party No.1,2,3 were served and initially opp.party No.2 appeared , later on , all the opp.parties remain absent and had not filed their written statement and ultimately the complaint petition proceeded exparte against them vide order dtd. 27.8.18. Accordingly the complainant adduces his evidence and complainant side is heard.
3) The gist of the case is that complainant on 1.8.15 purchased a “Redmi 2” handset (IMEI Name 867512025055209) from the opp.party No.1 along with “TMS” extended warranty and an Insurance policy issued by opp.party No. 1 company. The complainant made a total payment of Rs.6,597/-. The actual price of the handset was Rs.5,999/- and Rs.299/- was for “TMS” extended warranty. According to the complainant the premium for the insurance was collected for the opp.party No.1 and total premium paid was Rs.41/-only. The opp.party issued computer generated retail invoice reflecting the details of the payment the opp.party No.2 issued Insurance Certificate bearing 260200/46/18/9500000078 dtd. 1.8.15. The total sum assured was Rs.5,999/-. Thepolicy cover was for a period of 1 year i.e. from 1.8.15 to 23:59 Hrs 31.7.16. Accoroding to thecomplainant the insurance policy covered “Accidental (including Fire & Allied Perils,Riot, Malicious Damage Act of God Perils ) + Water/liquid Damage.
4) Having such a policy in the month of Nov.2015 , the complainant accidently broked his handset and took the same to the opp.party no.4, the authorized service centre for changing the said broken screen . The total cost of repairing was estimated was Rs.3,500/- and opp.party No.4 had issued a mobile repairing estimate template dtd.17.11.2015 which reflects the details of damage and an amount of cost payment etc. The opp.party accordingly made the payment and collected the handset after changing the LCD from opp.party No.4.
5) The said handset was covered for accidental damage and accordingly complainant approached the opp.party for reimbursement of the money spent for and opp.party No. 2 asked the complainant to submit a claim form which was duly filled up and submitted to the opp.party no. 2 on 17.11.2015 . The opp.party No.2 assured that money should be reimbursed , but even after lapse of 9 months of submission of the claim the opp.parties have made no payment as such. The complainant further alleges that the opposite party no.2 is not making any amount of payment and have malpractice and doing unfair business tactics adopted by the company. The claimant further submits that opp.party No.1 having administration charge of Rs.258/- while issuing the insurance policy is duty bound for extend their support and service for claim settlement and they having failed to do so are also liable for compensation for subjecting the complainant to mental and physical harassment.
6) The complainant further submits that opp.party No. 3 acting as a broker while issuing insurance policy is also liable for settlement of the claim and he also failed to do so.
7) Having such grievances complainant on 21.4.16 sent a legal notice to the opp.party No.2. However the opposite party did not pay any attention to the said notice. The opp.party No.2 have not paid any attention to the grievance of the consumer and the conduct of the opp.party and their attitude towards the complainant was not fair. According to the complainant the cause of action arose on 17.11.2015 and this cause of action arose in the city of Guwahati within the jurisdiction of this forum and complainant claim for payment of Rs.3,500/- from the date of 17.11.2015 and also made a claim for compensation amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- for mental and physical harassment for no fault of the complainant and also claim for an amount of Rs.12,000/- for cost of litigation .
8) Since opp.party had not contested the proceeding the complainant has submitted his evidence in affidavit and testified as many as 4 no’s of documents as annexure 1,2,3 & 4 . We have considered the statement of complainant made on oath and gone through the insurance policy . Annexure 1 which is the payment slip (invoice) issued in the name of complainant by the opp.party No.1 and total payment was made amounting to Rs.6,597/-. Annex.2 is the insurance policy issued by National Insurance Co.Ltd. standing in the name of the complainant issued by opp.party No.2 and Annex.3 is a documents which is the expenditure incurred by the complainant for repairing of the handset amounting of Rs.3,500/- on 17.11.2015. Annex.4 is the premium receipt for the mobile handset mentioning the name of opp.party and the complainant which supported the fact that a policy was purchased by the complainant in respect of a mobile handset from opp.party No.1.
9) We have carefully gone through the testimony of the claimant made on oath and it reveals that petitioner/complainant have made all attempt to get back his money of amounting of Rs.3,500/- only on the basis of his insurance policy cover made at the time of purchasing and the mobile handset, he submitted duly filled up form to the opp.party No.2 for reimbursement of the money, but all the opp.party have not responded to the claim made by the complainant and as such they have neglected to their service required to be served towards his consumer.
10) Our carefull perusal of evidence on record it reveals that opp.party No.3 being a broker have no specific contribution towards the service and in the aforesaid matter the opp.aprty No.1 is liable because of the fact that on Ex.4 the name of the opp.party no.1 is there who have charged an amount of Rs.251/- as administration charge while issuing the insurance policy and is bound to extend his support and service for settlement of the claim etc. which allegely have not been done.
11) But surprisingly from the statement of the complainant on oath it is clear enough that affidavit on para 14 it is clearly mentioned that there was a settlement of the claim after 11 months of the claim made by the complainant and was settled at an amount of Rs. 2,983/- while the claim was Rs.3,500/-.
12) We have gone through the written argument filed on behalf of the complainant which is in support of the fact that the “Redmi 2” handset purchased from opp.party No. 1 and insured by opp.party No.2 got damaged during the period of policy. The estimate dtd. 17.11.2015 has shown the damages and an amount payable etc in respect of the aforesaid handset. It is further found from the written argument of the complainant that after filing of the complaint opp.parties had settled the claim in the month of Nov.2016 by paying Rs.2,983/- which was an amount less than the actual expenditure spent by the complainant for repairing the mobile handset . It is further apparent from the record and the argument of the learned counsel that during the pendency of the present proceeding parties have involved in the compromise and settlement of the claim receiving Rs.2,983/-by the complainant was arrived.
13) Now the question arises if the complainant was not agreed with the settlement he could have very easily refused the same. Moreover, it is not a fair for the party in litigation to compromise a matter outside the forum without informing its result to the forum on the subsequent date. The evidence of the claimant and his argument put forwarded by the learned counsel have not mentioned on what date and under what circumstances the dispute was settled between the parties . It has been mentioned that in the month of November,2016 the claim was settled by paying Rs.2,983/-. If that was the fact then complainant instead of lingering the matter for a long period of time could have at the earliest stage informed this forum about the development of the case . Because the complaint petition was filed on 7.9.2016 i.e. in the month of September 2016. If the opp.party have settled the claim in the month of November ,2016 that is after 2 months of filing of the complaint petition , then in that case the complainant could have informed this forum about such development or could have amend the complaint disclosing the real fact of dispute which the claimant have not come with clean hand. At the same time the opp.party instead of taking time initially could have informed this forum about such development, but they remain absent and matter proceeded exparte.
14) Now from the foregoing discussion it is apparent that during pendency of the proceeding without intimation to the forum the parties have settled their dispute at a certain amount which may not be satisfactory, but complainant could have informed this forum about the development. If matter of settlement was not satisfactory and it was done after 9 months of filing the complaint petition then complainant was not bound to accept it which he had not done.
15) In one hand there was a settlement of the claim between the parties and on the other side the complainant without informing the forum proceeded with the complaint, which is not fair and justified. In our humble opinion the complaint petition have no merit and is dismissed.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Forum, Kamrup, this the 9th day of June , 2020.
Member Member President
