Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/16/2016

B.Venkateswarlu, S/o.B.Venkata Subbaiah, Regional Business Head. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., rep. by its Authorised Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

M.Sidda Reddy

30 Jul 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 03.02.2016

Order Date:30.07.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

SATURDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.16/2016

 

 

Between

 

B.Venkateswarlu,

S/o. B.Venkata Subbaiah,

Regional Business Head,

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

D.No.19-9-51/405, Kota Elsons Towers,

Old Tiruchanoor Road,

Tirupati – 517 501,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

            Reg. office: New India Buildings,

87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort,

Mumbai.

 

2.         The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

Adithya Towers, Balaji Colony,

Tirupati – 517 501.

 

3.         The Universal Insurance Brokers Service Pvt. Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

            No.912-A, 9^th Floor, Raghavaratan Towers,

            Chirag Ali Lane,

            Abids,

            Hyderabad.

 

4.         Big-C Mobiles Private Limited,

            By Authorised Signatory,

            D.No.40-14-580, Adithya Towers,

            Central Park,

            Tirupati                                                                                  …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 14.07.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.M.Sidda Reddy, counsel for complainant, and Sri.Gotti Gajendra, counsel for opposite party No.2, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section - 12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 4 for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to process insurance claim of his I-Phone and to settle the claim, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,640/- towards repair charges of I-Phone, 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- for the mental agony caused by the opposite parties, and to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the litigation.   

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant purchased I-Phone 6-Plus, 64GB, SL.No.IMEI 35443806433246, from the opposite party No.4, for a sum of Rs.71,500/- on 11.04.2015, vide invoice No.SI/TPT2/514, dt:11.04.2015, which includes insurance premium payment.

            3.  That on 27.08.2015, while the complainant going to office on his scooter at about 2 p.m., he observed that a scooterist coming in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. The complainant in order to avoid head of collision applied sudden breaks, as such he fell down. Consequently the mobile phone fell on the road, as a result of which his mobile damaged. Immediately, he approached 4^th opposite party on the same day and informed about the damage to his mobile phone and the accident. On the advise of 4^th opposite party, he informed the said fact to 3^rd opposite party i.e. Universal Insurance Brokers Service Pvt. Ltd. As per the advise of 3^rd opposite party, damaged cell phone was entrusted to authorized service provider of 3^rd opposite party i.e. F-1 Info Solutions and Services Private Limited., Tirupati, for repairs. They got repaired the mobile phone and collected Rs.25,642/- towards repair charges on 27.08.2015 and the complainant took back the mobile phone on 16.09.2015. On 12.09.2015 complainant addressed a letter to 3^rd opposite party requesting to process his insurance claim. Complainant paid the entire repair charges of Rs.25,642/- but     3^rd opposite party did not process his insurance claim. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice on 27.10.2015. Opposite party No.4, having sold the I-Phone to the complainant and received premium on behalf of opposite party No.1, opposite parties 1 to 3 are bound to reimburse the complainant, the cost of the damages, service charges, mental agony suffered by the complainant and also to compensate the complainant. But the opposite parties failed to do so. Hence the complaint.

            4.  Opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 remained exparte.

            5.  Opposite party No.2 filed written version denying parawise allegations in the complaint and further contended that the complainant did not file the insurance policy copy relating to his mobile phone alleged to have been issued by opposite party No.2. That the opposite party No.2 received a legal notice dt:27.10.2015 from the complainant, on that opposite party No.2 sent a letter dt:03.11.2015 to the complainant requesting him to furnish 1) claim intimation letter, 2) copy of policy, 3) cell phone bill, d) repair bill. So far the complainant did not furnish the same. The complainant did not file the acknowledgement from opposite party No.1, to show that he has sent a claim form or cell phone bill or repair bill to opposite party No.1, as such no letter was sent to opposite party No.1, as contended by him.

            6.  That opposite party No.4 gave suitable reply along with procedure to be followed by the complainant that the complainant shall handover the cell phone for the said repairs only after approval from Insurance Company, but he has not followed the same. Opposite party No.3 also issued suitable reply stating that as per the conditions of the policy under Section-6 claim procedure – damaged category, under which complainant is advised do not get damaged insured equipment repaired unless intimated over help line of UIB and further authorized by insurer company and stating that the policy conditions enclosed to the complainant. That the complainant has got his cell phone repaired on 23.09.2015 without any approval from the insurer. The loss / damaged property has to be surveyed / inspected by the licensed surveyor, as the cell phone was insured for higher amount of Rs.71,500/-. Further the complainant got cell phone repaired and forwarded the bill / invoice dt:23.09.2015 before conducting survey. Hence, claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2, further contended at para.15 of his written version that the complainant has to follow the procedure laid down under Section-6 of the policy conditions, that he failed to do so. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. There is no cause of action for filing the complaint. That the complainant used his cell phone carelessly and negligently. Therefore, the opposite parties are not liable to pay the claim. Repudiation is proper and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            7.  In support of the case of the complainant, he himself filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. For the opposite parties evidence affidavit of R.W.1 was filed and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

8.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether the complainant established that he insured his I-Phone 6-Plus,

       64GB, SL.No.IMEI 35443806433246 as contended?           

(ii)  Whether the repudiation ordered by 3^rd opposite party is justified?

(iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

(iv)  To what relief?

9. Point No.(i):-  to answer this point, the burden lies on the complainant to establish that his mobile phone i.e. I-Phone 6-Plus, 64GB, SL.No.IMEI 35443806433246 had been insured with opposite parties 1 to 3. Inspite of specific contention of opposite party No.2, that the complainant has not filed the copy of insurance policy in respect of the said mobile phone, the complainant failed to do so. It is pertinent to mention that nowhere in the complaint or in the evidence affidavit of complainant and also in the written arguments filed by the complainant, atleast the insurance policy number is mentioned. That apart Ex.A1 said to be the purchase bill is not visible to the naked eye, even by using magnifying glass. We cannot find the columns therein. Ex.A1 is neither signed by any of the authorized signatories of opposite party No.4 or it contains any seal / stamp. As such it appears to be as vague as it could be. Ex.A1 further discloses that Rs.76,___ and odd was paid (with great difficulty we could ascertain that figure). This figure is quiet contrary to the figures mentioned in the complaint, affidavit of complainant and written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant, as the cost of the mobile. In the pleadings as well as in the evidence affidavit and also in the written arguments, the cost of the said mobile phone was mentioned as Rs.71,500/-. The complainant also failed to file the copy of insurance policy, so as to enable this Forum to know / to find that the complainant has insured his mobile phone with any of the opposite parties. Apart from it, Ex.A3 Declaration Form – Damage Claim, did not disclose the insurance policy number or the amount claimed by the complainant. Similarly, the complainant also failed to mention the amounts he paid towards the insurance premium in any of the documents including the complaint. As such there was no pleading or evidence to show that the complainant has paid a particular amount towards the premium of insurance policy. Exs.A3 and A5 are said to be the Declaration Form – Damage Claim and Insurance Claim Form respectively, without mentioning the premium paid and actual amount he is claiming through those documents. In the complaint, Ex.A4 and Ex.A8, he demanded the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,640/-, paid by him towards repair charges of the mobile phone referred to above. The opposite party also did not choose to file the copy of insurance policy. Since the complainant failed to file the insurance policy copy and also failed to mention the premium amount he paid towards insurance of his mobile phone, nowhere either in the pleadings or in the evidence or in the arguments and that he has not mentioned in Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 specifically, what is the claim he is making towards insurance claim. Under the above circumstances, we are unable to convince with the case of the complainant and hold that the complainant failed to establish that his mobile phone was insured with either of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and when it was insured and what is the premium amount he paid. Accordingly, this point is answered.

10. Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, we have to state that since the complainant failed to prove that he has insured his mobile with opposite party No.3 or any of the opposite parties and that he has paid a particular amount as premium amount for the said insurance and that he has not made any specific insurance claim except the repair charges, and also since the complainant failed to furnish the documents required by the opposite party under Ex.B2, so as to enable the opposite party to process his claim. Opposite party No.3, properly passed the repudiation orders. For the failure on the part of the complainant in proving that his mobile was insured and he has furnished all the required documents to the opposite parties, his claim cannot be accepted and the repudiation is, in our opinion justified. Accordingly, this point is answered.

11.  Point No.(iii):-  to answer this point, we have state that as the complainant failed to prove that he has insured his mobile with either of opposite parties 1 to 3 more particularly with opposite party No.3, for a particular amount and that he has paid a specific amount towards insurance premium and also failed to file the copy of the policy in the Forum. Even other documents filed in the Forum as exhibits, the complainant has mentioned only the details of the mobile phone and the details of the accident and nowhere atleast the insurance policy number is mentioned. Under those circumstances, we cannot find fault with the opposite parties in repudiating his claim and under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

12.  Point No.(iv):-  in view of the discussion held on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case in any aspect and that he is not entitled for the reliefs sought for and the complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.                  

 

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 30^th day of July, 2016.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-       

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: B. Venkateswarlu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartIES.

 

RW-1: R. Madhusudhan Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Purchase Bill. Dt: 11.04.2015.
	Photo copy of Letter addressed to the Opposite Party No.3. by Opposite Party No.4.  Dt: 10.09.2015.
	Photo copy of Declaration Form- Damage Claim. Dt: 27.08.2015.
	Photo copy of Quotation given by Info Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd., Tirupati. Dt: 27.08.2015.
	Photo Copy of Insurance Claim form. Dt: 12.09.2015.
	Photo copy of Letter addressed to the Opposite Party No.1 by the complainant. Dt: 12.09.2015.
	Photo copy of Courier Receipt. Dt: 12.09.2015 and 14.09.2015.
	Photo copy of cash receipt issued by F1 Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., at Tirupati. Dt: 16.09.2015.
	Office copy of letter addressed to Opposite Party No.1 by the complainant. Dt: 09.10.2015.
	Office copy of the legal notice with postal receipt sent to Opposite Parties 1 to 4. Dt: 27.10.2015.
	Postal acknowledgement cards from Opposite Parties 1 to 4.
	Reply notice issued by Opposite Party No.2. Dt: 03.11.2015.
	Reply notice issued by Opposite Party No.3. Dt: 06.11.2015.
	Reply notice issued by Opposite Party No.4. Dt: 06.11.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy (With Attestation) of Policy Conditions.
	A letter addressed to M.Kumar Raju in reply to the Notice Dt: 27.10.2015 issued by the Complainant. Dt: 03.11.2015.(Attested Copy).

 

                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                    

                                                                                                               President

            // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

  

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.