DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/165 of 4.8.2015

                                      Decided on:        25.2.2016

Harwinder Singh son of Sh.Harmanjeet Singh, resident of village Punia Khana, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2-B, Unity Buildings, Annexe, P. Kalinga Rao Road, Bangalore-560027 through its Chairman/Director.

2.      Harjeet Bros, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala through its Proprietor.

3.      Apps Daily Pvt.Ltd. through Inderjit Singh,Distributor c/o Harjeet Bros, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.K.S.Josan  , Advocate

For Op No.1:                  Sh.Amit Gupta,Advocate

For Op No.2:                Ex-parte.           

                                         ORDER

SONIA BANSAL ,MEMBER

1. The complainant  purchased a mobile hand set make Samsung 9000 Note 3 bearing IMEI No.351540061295218 from Op no.2 vide invoice No.6189 dated 16.2.2015 for a sum of Rs.34900/- and at that time the mobile hand set was got insured with Op no.1 i.e. New India Assurance Company through Ops No.2&3 vide policy No.67030246142-400000008 in which assurance was given by the Op’s that in case of theft, loss or damage of the mobile hand set, it will be covered under the insurance and insurance amount will be paid to the complainant.
2. It is averred that the mobile hand set was stolen on 28.3.2015 and the FIR of the same was lodged with P.S.Sangrur. After 2-3 days, the complainant blocked his SIM also.
3. It is further averred that the complainant lodged the complaint by furnishing claim form with insurance company along with original documents to get the claim amount from the insurance company in the month of April,2015 but the claim was repudiated.
4. It is further averred that the complainant served the Ops with a legal notice dated 6.7.2015 but to no effect. It is alleged by the complainant that all these facts show that there is a clear cut deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. The complainant underwent a lot of mental agony, tension, harassment, inconvenience as well as  humiliation at the hands of the Ops. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986,( for short the Act) for a direction  to the Ops to pay the insured amount of the mobile phone set in question and to pay him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of harassment and mental agony experienced by him.
5. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Ops no.1&2 only.On notice, Op no.2 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte while Op no.1 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. In its written statement, Op no.1 admitted the fact that complainant has got insurance cover with regard to the mobile with IMEI No.351540061295218 under master policy issued to M/s Apps daily solutions Private Limited, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. One of the exclusions of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was taken as a plea by the Ops i.e. “Mobile kept in car was stolen .No evidence of forcible entry”
   Moreover Ops have raised certain preliminary objections, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable as the theft of the mobile hand set in question, has taken place at Sangrur and the insurance policy was obtained from branch office, Bangalore and as such the present complaint is not maintainable at Patiala as no cause of action has arisen at Patiala. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Insurance company and it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith other documents Exs.C1 to C13 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for Op no.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Dr.Ramesh Pandit, divisional officer of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Patiala alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP12 and closed the evidence.
8. Written arguments have been filed by the complainant. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel fr the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
9. Ex.C1 is the copy of invoice whereby the complainant purchased one mobile hand set make Samsung 9000 Note 3 bearing IMEI No.351540061295218 from Op no.2 vide invoice No.6189 dated 16.2.2015 for a sum of Rs.34900/- and same mobile was got insured with New India Assurance Company Limited vide policy No.67030246142400000008 in which the complainant was assured by the Ops against any theft, loss or damage to the insured mobile hand set.
10. On 28.3.2015, the mobile hand set was stolen and the FIR of the same was lodged with P.S.Sangrur vide Ex.C2. The complainant blocked his SIM on 31.3.2015 vide Ex.C3. The complainant lodged the complaint by filling a claim form with New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vide Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 is copy of the pre-receipt claim voucher.All the original documents demanded by the Op to settle down the claim were also attached with the covering letter vide Ex.C6 but the claim was repudiated by the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. on the ground that “Mobile kept in car was stolen and no evidence of forcible entry”, which falls under below exclusion as per the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.C13 and Ex.OP1. Theft is not only by way of forcible entry rather there are many other modes of theft also. One other plea was also taken by the Ops on the point of jurisdiction that Insurance Policy was acquired from branch office Bangalore and theft of the mobile phone had taken place at Sangrur and as such the present complaint is not maintainable at Patiala because no cause of action had arisen to the complainant to file the complaint at Patiala but the policy against theft , loss or damage to the insured mobile hand set was issued and received at Patiala by the complainant. Moreover Ops no.2&3 carries their business for gain at Patiala through Op no.1. It is further submitted that repudiation letter was also accepted at Patiala vide Ex.OP3 on 21^st August,2015 and Op no.1 is having its branch office at Patiala . From all these facts, it is very much clear that cause of action arose at Patiala. Then complainant served a legal notice upon Ops dated 6.7.2015 vide Ex.C7 and Ex.C8,C9 and C10 are the postal receipts respectively but Op failed to give reply to the legal notice. The repudiation of the claim by Op is not justified as the mobile hand set was duly insured with New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and Op was bound to pay the insured amount of the mobile phone to the complainant which it failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of Op. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint with a direction to op no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.34900/- to the complainant. Op is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- for the harassment under gone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by Op no.1 within a period of one month of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Pronounced

Dated:25.2 .2016

          Neelam Gupta                  A.P.S.Rajput                      Sonia Bansal

   Member                            President                            Member