Haryana

Sonipat

CC/401/2015

Sonu S/o Umesh Paswan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Com. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Dahiya

17 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.401 of 2015

                                Date of Instt. 29.10.2015 

                                Date of order: 17.05.2016

 

Sonu son of Umesh Paswan, resident of Halwai Hatta, near Bada Jain Mandir, Sonepat City, Haryana.

                                           ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

The New India Ass. Co. Ltd., Bommasandra Branch, Kiadb Complex, 1 Floor Hsour Main road, Banglore-562158 through its Manager.

 

                                           ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Dahiya Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. DS Malik, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint

against the respondent alleging himself to be the owner of a mobile handset make Apple iphone 6+ which was purchased by him on 23.4.2015 worth Rs.73970/- and the same was insured with the respondent.  Unfortunately, on 25.5.2015, the complainant lost his above insured mobile set and the same could not be traced out despite his best efforts.  The complainant informed the local police and also informed the respondent regarding loss of mobile phone.  The complainant has also completed all the required formalities, but despite this, the respondent has not settled the claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the risk covered under the policy is clearly mentioned in the policy itself and as per the policy, the risk covered is for theft, burglary and accidental damage/physical damage including fluid damage.  But the case of the complainant does not fall in any of the categories for risk covered.  Neither the mobile of the complainant was stolen nor it was snatched after preparation for causing death or hurt as described in Section 382 IPC. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that unfortunately, on 25.5.2015, the complainant lost his mobile set Apple iphone 6+ and the same could not be traced out despite his best efforts.  The said mobile set was insured with the respondent.  The complainant informed the local police and also informed the respondent regarding loss of mobile phone.  The complainant has also completed all the required formalities, but despite this, the respondent has not settled the claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the  respondent has submitted that the risk covered under the policy is clearly mentioned in the policy itself and as per the policy, the risk covered is for theft, burglary and accidental damage/physical damage including fluid damage.  But the case of the complainant does not fall in any of the categories for risk covered.  Neither the mobile of the complainant was stolen nor it was snatched after preparation for causing death or hurt as described in Section 382 IPC. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent.

          But we find no force in the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the respondent.  The respondent has failed to produce any record that the policy was supplied to the complainant.  Further there is no receipt on the file which may go to prove that the policy was ever handed over to the complainant by the insurance company. In the present case, the mobile of the complainant has lost during the validity of the insurance policy.  As per Ex.C4, the complainant has informed the police regarding the incident of “mobile lost”.  The complainant has purchased the mobile set worth Rs.73970/- on 23.4.2015 and on 25.5.2015 i.e. within two months, the same was lost anywhere by the complainant.  In our view, the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount from the respondents.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents to deduct 20% amount out of Rs.73970/-.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to deduct 20% amount out of Rs.73970/- and then to pay the balance amount to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati Member)            (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                       DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  17.05.2016