Haryana

Karnal

CC/148/2015

Rahul Goel S/o Sunil Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Goel

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 148 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt. 14.07.2015

                                                               Date of decision:01.09.2016

 

Rahul Goel aged about 28 years son of Shri Sunil Goel, resident of House no.989, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, having its Divisional Office near Bus Stand, Karnal.

2. M/s Apps daily Solution Pvt. Ltd., D-3137, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali, Farm Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 through its Executive Officer at Karnal (Haryana).

                                                                                 …………Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Shri Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                    Opposite party no.2 exparte.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased one mobile phone model Sony C6802, bearing no.9034239115 and having IMEI no.35765051711461 from M/s Shri Nath Ji Sales, having its office at 350,  Old Char Chaman, Link Road, Urban Estate, Karnal, vide invoice no26605 dated 4.12.2014. On the same day, he got fully insured the said mobile with the opposite party no.1 for the period of 4.12.2014 to 3.12.2015 and paid premium of Rs.1749/-, vide receipt no.26606. On 17.5.2015 the screen of the said mobile phone had broken all of a sudden. He approached the opposite party no.2 and on the asking of official of opposite party no.2 got checked the mobile set from F1 Info Solutions and Services Pvt. Ltd.493-L, Model Town, Karnal. After inspection of the mobile set, the official concerned of the F1 Info Solution and Services Pvt. Ltd. issued the total estimate for repair as Rs.20,265.15. Thereafter, he approached the opposite parties and submitted the relevant documents for release of the policy amount, but the matter was postponed on one pretext or the other. On 15.6.2015 the opposite parties knowingly and intentionally repudiated the claim without any rhyme or reason. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had not furnished the required documents sought from him, vide letter dated 27.5.2015, wherein he was informed that his claim was settled for Rs.4203/- as per terms of the policy and the amount shall be released when he furnishes the documents stated therein. However, the complainant refused to accept that amount and did not furnish the requisite documents.

3.                None put into appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 despite service of notice, therefore, exparte proceeding were initiated against it, vide order dated 10.11.2015.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C9 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party no.1 documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O4 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The mobile phone model Sony C6802 of the complainant was insured by opposite party no.1 on 4.12.2014 for the period of 4.12.2014 to 3.11.2015. The screen of the said mobile phone had broken all of a sudden on 17.5.2015. The complainant lodged claim, but his claim was allowed only for Rs.4203/- subject to furnishing hard copy of the claim documents for further process.

8.                The main plank of the opposite party no.1 is Ex.O1 wherein it has been mentioned that for all Sony Replacement Claims 33% of the invoice amount would be taken if the handset is under 6 months and 50% of the Invoice amount would be taken if the handset is above 6 months. No such term or condition of the insurance policy has been brought to the notice of this Forum by learned counsel for the opposite party no.1. Even otherwise, such a condition does not appeal to the reason that if the handset is under 6 months 33% amount would be paid for replacement and if the said is older than 6 months then 50% amount would be paid. Therefore, calculating the replacement cost of the mobile as Rs.6270/-, as 33% of the invoice value is without any basis. Opposite party no.1 was bound to pay the insured value of the mobile after deducting the depreciation of 25% and Rs.500/-as policy excess as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The mobile set of the complainant was insured for an amount of Rs.19000/-. For replacement claim, the opposite party no.1 could deduct 25% out of the insured value as depreciation and Rs.500/- for policy excess. Thus, the amount on calculation comes to Rs.13750/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.13750/- as compensation for replacement of his mobile set from opposite party no.1 and not making the payment of such amount by opposite party no.1 amounted to deficiency in service.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.13,750/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite party no.1 to  pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 01.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member