DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/74/2015 of 13.4.2015

                                      Decided on:        28.8.2015

Surjit Singh aged 50 years s/o Sh.Gurdev Singh R/o H.No.67-B, St.No.3,Guru Nanak Nagar, Badungar, Patiala Ph.No.8699884523.        

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. The New India Assurance Ltd.,Bangloure.
2. The New India Assurance Ltd.Branch Office, Chhoti Baradari, Near Narain Continental Hotel, Patiala, through its Manager.
2.  
3. The Cell Hut, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala, through its Prop.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

Present:

For the complainant:   Smt.Ravinder Kaur Soni, Advocate

For Op No.2:                Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Advocate 

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant had purchased a mobile phone make Sony Xperia –M bearing IMEI No.358098054193505 for Rs.13400/- from Op no.3 on 28.3.2014 vide invoice No.2441. The complainant got the said mobile phone insured for a period of one year i.e. upto 28.3.2015 with Ops no.1&2 namely New India Assurance Limited, covering the risk of theft, burglary, physical damage including fluid damage.
2. There having occurred defect in the mobile phone, the complainant approached the service centre namely Sanklap Centre on 1.11.2014 and the service centre replaced the PCB and IMEI Number of the same was issued by way of swap to 352709061599304.
3. On 24.1.2015, when the complainant was going on his bike that suddenly  a dog came in front of his bike and therefore, the complainant had fallen. His mobile phone also fell on the road. In the mean time a speedy car had ran over the phone and therefore, the same was damaged. The complainant approached the service centre namely Sanklap Electronics and got his mobile phone checked but the technician Mr.Sachin disclosed that the mobile phone could not be repaired nor the same will be replaced.
4. The complainant then visited the office of Op no.2 to submit his claim but who refused to accept the same. The act of Ops no.2&3 having not accepted the Claim Form although the mobile phone was insured with Op no.2 is said to be a deficiency in service. The complainant visited Op no.2 a number of times for submitting the claim but the Ops failed to pay any heed to the same. Accordingly the complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice dated 12.3.2015 through his counsel but no heed was paid to the same.Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to reimburse the claim of the insurance with interest and  to pay him the damages in a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him.
5. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against  Op no.2 only but the written version is shown to have been filed on behalf of Ops no.1&2 although the power of attorney was filed in favor of Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for Op no.2 only and therefore, the written version will be read on behalf of Op no.2 only. It is denied by the Op that the complainant purchased mobile phone make Sony Xperia from Op no.3 against a bill . It is also denied that Op had issued a cover note regarding the mobile phone covering the risk of theft, burglary, physical damage including fluid damage for a period of one year upto 28.3.2015. The Op had issued Mobile Hand Set All Risks Insurance Policy for the period 28.3.2014 to 27.3.2015 but the Op has got no liability as per the terms and conditions of the policy as the complainant violated the terms and conditions.
6. The alleged damagd caused to the mobile phone was due to the negligence of the claimant. The complainant failed to intimate the claim to APPSDAILY through its Toll Free No.1800 209 9060 within 48 hours of the occurrence and immediately after the intimation the claim documents, to be down loaded from the web site, and all completed claimed documents to be submitted within 21 days alongwith estimate of damage obtained from authorized service centre that the hand set is beyond repair. The complainant was also bound to supply three photos of the damaged hand set, invoice  of mobile hand, ID proof and damaged equipments. The claim is liable to 45% depreciation and the complainant was liable to surrender the damaged hand set alongwith claimed documents and the salvage. The Op has denied the version of the complainant that the mobile hand set was damaged on 24.1.2015 when he was going on his bike and the complainant had fallen on account of a dog having come in front of his bike and as a result of which the mobile hand set also fell. The complainant has concocted a false story. It is denied that the complainant approached the service centre i.e. Sanklap Electronics and that he was told by the service centre that the mobile hand set could neither be repaired nor replaced. The complainant failed to supply any estimate of loss got from the authorized service centre. It is denied that Op no.2 refused to accept the Claim Form of the complainant. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Op, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. In support of his complaint the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C17 and the complainant closed his evidence.
8. On the other hand on behalf of the Op,it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Pandita, Sr.Divisional Manager of the Divisional Office of OP at Patiala alongwith the documentEx.OP1 and its counsel closed the evidence.
9. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
10. Ex.C1 is the retail invoice dated 28.3.2014, vide which the complainant had purchased the mobile hand set make Sony Xperia bearing IMEI No.358098094193505 for Rs.13400/- from Op no.3.Ex.C2 is the mobile hand set All Risks Insurance Policy No.67030246132400000004 valid for a period of 12 months issued by the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. covering the risks of theft, burglary, physical damage including fluid damage.
11. As per the case of the complainant his mobile hand set had been damaged on 24.1.2015, on which  day he visited the authorized service centre namely Sankalp Electronics SCF 9 SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Patiala and got the estimate, Ex.C4 in respect of the mobile hand set bearing IMEI No.352709061599304. Here, it may be noted that the original IMEI No.358098054193505 was swapped vide IMEI No.352709061599304 vide job No.W114102503188 dated 1.11.2014 by the authorized service centre namely Sankalp Electronics when the complainant had approached it with a problem in the mobile hand set, as per the averments made in para no.3 of the complaint, a fact not denied.
12. It is the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant failed to intimate the claim to APPSDAILY through toll free No.1800 209 9060 within 48 hours of the occurrence and immediately after the intimation the claimed documents, to be down loaded from the web site and all completed claimed documents within twenty one days alongwith estimate of damage got from authorized service centre that the hand set is beyond repair. Similarly, it is the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant was bound to supply three photos of the damaged hand set , invoice of mobile hand set, ID proof and damaged equipments. In this regard , Sh.D.P.S.Anand, the learned counsel for the OP made reference to the terms and conditions of the policy,Ex.C2, which as submitted by Sh.Anand were provided to the complainant alongwith mobile hand set. He referred to the claim procedure noted as under:

“Claim Procedure:

• Customer intimate the claim to APPSDAILY Toll Free Number 1800-209-9060 within 48 hours of the occurrence.
• Immediately after intimation, following procedure to be followed CLAIM DOCUMENTS TO BE DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE.

For theft:

• Mobile Handset to be taken to Authorized Service Centre or Service Centre identified by APPSDAILY & ‘Estimate for Repair’ to be obtained.

Claimant to send the following documents by E-mail to

On receiving the above documents by mail, decision on admissibility of the claim and quantum will be communicated to claimant by E-mail within 4-24 hours on any working day.

If claim is approved on REPAIR BASIS, following documents IN ORIGINAL are to be submitted as per the ‘Address’ mentioned on claim documents or as informed by the Call Centre:

• Claim Forms( as specified)
• Estimate from Authorized Service Centre OR Service Centre identified by APPSDAILY
• 3 photos of the damaged hand set( 1 photo showing IMEI No. and other 2 showing damage)
• Invoice of Mobile Handset
• Claimant ID proof
• Cash Receipt or Invoice of Repair from Service Centre for the repaired hand set

On receipt of above mentioned documents, the approved claim amount will be credited to claimant’s account in 7 working days.

If claim is approved on  TOTAL LOSS BASIS, following documents IN ORIGINAL are to be submitted as per the ‘Address’ available on Claim Documents or as informed by the Call Centre:

• Claim Forms( as specified)”

13. It was submitted by Smt.R.K.Soni, the learned counsel for the complainant that  it is not practically possible for a consumer to follow the online procedure as provided in the terms and conditions of the policy,Ex.C2 because if, the customer gives the intimation to APPSDAILY through Toll Free No. 1800 209 9010 , he has further to opt so many numbers while giving the intimation that one is lost of the track and can not complete the procedure and is left bewildered .Morever, every consumer does not have the facility of down loading the documents through e-mail from the site of the Op and then to resend the same and in that way the procedure disclosed by the Op is very complicated and one can not comply with the same practically.
14. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it is the positive plea taken up by the complainant that after getting the estimate from the authorized service centre, the complainant approached the Op for lodging the claim but the same was not accepted. The complainant also got the Ops no.1&2 served with the legal notice dated 12.3.2015,Ex.C10 sent through registered post as would appear from the postal receipts Exs.C11 to C14, in which also it was disclosed that the complainant had approached Op no.2 for lodging the claim but the same was not accepted. No doubt  Op No.2 gave reply to the said notice vide Ex.C17 dated 17.3.2015 having denied the averments made by the complainant in the notice that he had approached Op no.2 for lodging the claim but there should be some reasons to disbelieve the complainant in this regard because it was only because of the mobile hand set of the complainant having been damaged that he had to approach the authorized service centre for getting the estimate and with the help of the same he approached Op no.2, and only when Op no.2 refused to accept the Claim Form,Ex.C5 alongwith Form 2C Incident Report,Ex.C6 and claim pre receipt voucher,Ex.C7,covering letter,Ex.C8 and photographs of the damaged mobile hand set,Ex.C9 that he had to get the ops served with the notice Ex.C10. To our mind it was a sufficient compliance of the policy terms and conditions in the matter of lodging the claim with Op no.2 directly instead of lodging the same through online. In that way the failure on the part of Op no.2 to accept the claim form so as to settle the claim of the complainant amounts to a deficiency in service.
15. As per the estimate Ex.C4 got by the complainant from the authorized service centre namely Sankalp Electronics, Rajpura Road, Patiala, the mobile hand set is repairable as the authorized service centre has estimated  the price of the part at Rs.7621.18.We, therefore, accept the  complaint and direct Op no.2 to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of the Claim Form  Ex.C5 and other incidental documents namely Exs.C6 to C8 within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order. The failure on the part of the Op to accept the claim form of the complainant certainly resulted into the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant and therefore, we direct the Op to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation and the same is inclusive of the costs of the complaint.

Pronounced

Dated: 28.8.2015

          Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President