Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 174.
Instituted on : 17.03.2017.
Decided on : 20.07.2018.
Jyoti Goel w/o Sh. Vivek, R/o H.No.1601-A/21, Chunni Pura, Rohtak-124001(Haryana) Age 32 years, Ph.No.9671700368.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Large Corporate & Brokers Office, 2nd Floor, 4, Mangoe lane, Kolkara-700001.
- Manager, YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd. # 123, Block A, Corenthum Towers, Sector-62, Noida-201301.
- Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., #313, Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- Proprietor, Bhutani Communication, Shop No.1, Ashoka Chowk, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 3.
Opposite party No.2 & 4 exparte.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased one mobile handset of Samsung Co. for a sum of Rs.28500/- vide invoice/bill dated 10.01.2017 alongwith an insurance policy and the complainant’s handset was damaged on 18.02.2017 and she informed about the incident to the opposite parties. That complainant deposited all the required documents to the respondents on time but they rejected the claim on 24.02.2017. That the act of opposite party of repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.28500/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to OP No.4 received back served and notice sent to OP No.2 through registered post not received back in any form. As such opposite party no.2 & 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.05.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party 1 & 3 in their reply has submitted that the complainant has not deposited all the relevant documents as required by the insurance company. The claim was rejected according to law and as per terms and conditions of the policy. That there is no negligence on the part of respondents no.1 and 3 and complainant is not entitled for any claim and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OP No.1 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and the evidence of OP No.1 & 3 was closed by order dated 27.04.2018 of this Forum.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material of the case very carefully.
5. The main objection of the opposite party No.1 and 3 is that the handset in question did not get damaged due to accident, so, they are unable to process the case further. Secondly mismatch of signature in purchase invoice and ID Proof. Both the pleas of the respondent No.1 & 3 are unsustainable. It is beyond imagination that the insurance company took such a rival objection that the mobile set was not damaged due to accident without giving any oral or documentary evidence to support their pleas. As regard the second objection the complainant has very clearly explained in her mail Ex.C6 at Mark-A the reason of mis-match. She further said that she also initials her signatures in both ways. The fact remains that there is no dispute of sale and purchase of the said mobile set and it is the compensation claimed for the same mobile set.
6. We see everyday that insurance companies take shelter of hyper-technicalities to defeat the claim of the insured which is so in this case. As such both the above pleas stands rejected. As such, the complaint succeeds and the complainant is entitled for the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy i.e insured amount Rs.28500/- less 10% deprecation, less salvage Rs.500/- i.e. to pay Rs.25150/-(Rupees twenty five thousand one hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.03.2017 till its realization which shall be paid by opposite party No.1 & 3. Opposite party No.1 & 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
