By : SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

          The case of the petitioner in short is that he purchased a Mobile Set being No. 8972569402 Model No. M5 Life, IMEI No. 869328022475375 on 01.04.16 from Kundu Electronics, Tamluk at a price of Rs. 13,000/- inducing VAT. The  hand set was insured with the OP No 1 for a premium of Rs 1299 deposited on 28.04.16 and the No. of the policy was 5000046161100000001 for loss and or damage of the mobile set. On 28.11.16 at about 5.00PM the said mobile set slipped off from the hand of the complainant when a motor cycle dashed him and the hand set got damaged and stopped functioning. The complainant lodged a complaint on 05.12.16 with the OP no 2 for make good the loss. The claim No. is D 86711864087. But the insurance Co. did not care to indemnify the loss incurred by the complainant. 

Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed this case with the prayers made in the complaint petition for the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

Both the OPs contested the case by filing separate written version as well as by filing written notes on arguments.

The OP No.1 denies all the material allegations made against them. It is the specific case of the OP that the mobile set purchased by the complainant had warrantee with YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd B 69 Sector 64, Noida, UP 201301. This OP has contract with the mobile manufacturer Co. to indemnity the manufacturer in the event of damages, losses etc. which is not repairable  within the period of warrantee and this OP has no direct contract with the complainant. It is further case of this OP that after the incident of damage of the mobile as stated by the complainant he did not inform the matter to the OP No 2 or any service center of the manufacturer of the mobile set or did not produce the set for inspection or repair by any authorized person of the Co.  There was also no terms or conditions that the OP NO. 1 shall indemnity the total or partial loss of the mobile set of the complainant.

The OP No.2 also denies all the material allegations made against them. It is the specific case of this OP that the case is not maintainable and is barred under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Further case of this OP is that they had no knowledge of the insurance made by the complainant for loss or damage of the mobile set sold by them. The OP no.2 contends that the case has been filed by the complainant with almost baseless grounds and it deserves to be dismissed with cost.

This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

On the basis of this case of both the parties, the points for determination are whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with Reasons.

Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of brevity and their interrelatedness.

Perused the complaint petition, the written version and the written notes on arguments, as well the documents filed by both the parties in this case.

          Admittedly the complainant purchased a mobile set at Rs. 13,000/- on 01.04.16 from the OP no.2 and admittedly there was an insurance under the OP no.1 for the said mobile set being policy No. 5000046161100000001 and the amount of the insurance coverage was Rs 1300/- and the complainant deposited the premium of Rs. 1299/- on 28.04.16 through the  HDFC Bank. It is seen that the complainant did not inform the OP no1 or 2 regarding the damage of his mobile set .OP no.1 did not get any opportunity to repudiate the claim of the complainant. Admittedly the mobile was allegedly damaged after being fallen from the hand of the complainant on 28.11.16 at 5 Pm when one motor cycle dashed him from behind. The complainant only lodged his claim before the OP No.1 but there is nothing on record to show whether the OP no1 repudiated the claim or not. From the copy of the cash memo filed by the complainant it is seen that there are three stipulations – (i) no sold goods will be returned (ii) if any hand set is given to repair within the warrantee period it will take two months’ time from the Co for repair of the mobile set and (iii) OP no 2 is not liable for any problem of the set within the warrantee period.

          The copy of the Insurance policy has been filed by the OP no.1 and in clause 10   it is written that the beneficiary shall however be required to provide reasonable proof  to show that the loss of or damage to the insured item was caused by an insured peril. Clause 7  of the said policy says all indemnities under this policy will be paid to the Service Administrator  or the Beneficiary depending on the Cover for which reimbursement is being made. So the complainant should wait for the result of his notice to the OPNo.1. It is a pre-matured case and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief but he can be given time to apply afresh before the OP No.1 for refund of his premium.

Hence, it is

                                                                                                ORDERED

That the CC No. 25 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No.1 and ex parte against both the OPs.

The complainant is directed to make fresh claim before the OP No.1 according to law.

Parties do bear their own costs.

Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.