BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 13th May 2016
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 63/2016
Complainant/s:
Suraj Shivalli, C/o.K.K.Kallangaudar, Basava Belaku, 4th Main, Gandhi Nagar, Dharwad 580004.
(By Sri.I.C.Patil, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s:
- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Leo Shopping Complex, III Floor, No.44/45, Residency Road Cross, Bangalore 560025.
(By Sri.M.Y.Katagi, Adv.)
- Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., No.3, Diamond Plaza, Opp HDFC Bank, Koppikar Road, Hubli 580020.
-
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to rectify the error by replacing mother board or to refund cost of mobile set, to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation towards mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant filed the complaint claiming to direct the respondent to settle the claim under the policy submitting the complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy Note 4 mobile set from respondent.2 by paying Rs.53,310/- & the same was insured with the respondent 1 under Mobile master policy 421100/48/2015/301 covering the risk for the period 09.11.2014 to 08.11.2015. The said mobile set due to water ingression while it was using become defective. Hence, the complainant approached the respondent.2’s authorized service center during that time service center gave quotation for Rs.17948/- to set right the defects on 03.10.2015. On 04.10.2015 the complainant along with all the relevant documents submits claim to respondent 1 but not settled. Hence, legal notice was issued on 17.10.2015 to set right or otherwise to replace the same. Despite service of notice the respondents did not complied which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. Despite service of notice respondent 2 remained absent. Hence, placed exparte and hence exparte proceedings initiated. Respondent.1 admits written version opposing the entire complaint averments by asserting justification in repudiating the claim on the grounds the claim fell within exclusion clause and prays for dismissal of the complaint contending that there is no deficiency in service as alleged.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit. complainant relied on documents Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- Affirmatively
- Accordingly
- As per order
R E A S O N S
P O I N T S 1 & 2
5. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the mobile set in question is insured and to the date of incident there is coverage of the risk.
6. Now the question to be determined is, whether the respondents justify in repudiating the claim and non settlement of the claim amount to deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
7. On perusal of the documents Ex.C1, C2 and C3 reveals the device in question is purchased by the complainant from the respondent.2. Ex.C2 reveals the device in question subject to defective due to ingression of water and it requires replacement and assessed cost will be Rs.17,948-14. Ex.C3 reveals the grounds for repudiation of the claim by the respondent.1. Taking into note of grounds made out in Ex.C3 and the same is compared with terms and conditions of Ex.C1 reveals the defects sought out falls within the policy coverage conditions & do not fell under exclusion clause as contended by the respondent.1. Further perusal of the Ex.C1 insurance terms and conditions excess clause reveals the excess shall be 5% of the value of the claim subject to minimum of Rs.300/-. By looking into the quotation Ex.C2 it reveals the device needs replacement of the spares in order to set right the defects. The complainant except producing quotation not produced receipt for payment of the quotation amount or to claim the said amount that the complainant has get it repaired. Under those circumstances repudiation made by the respondent.1 is not illegal but however since there is a coverage of the risk, complainant is entitled for the benefits under the policy and accordingly there is liability of the respondent 1 to settle the claim. Hence, the complainant though established he is entitled for the claim not established deficiency in service as alleged. In the event the complainant produced receipt for payment of charges for repair or replacement of the parts in such an event the respondent.1 shall have to pay the claim amount in accordance with the terms and conditions i.e. by deducting 5% excessive clause amount. Accordingly complainant is entitled for the reliefs.
8. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 Affirmatively and accordingly.
9. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
Complaint is allowed in part. In the event the complainant produced receipt of repair charges, the respondent 1 shall settle the same immediately without any further delay in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy by deducting excessive clause amount @5% on the total receipt amount along with Rs.500/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 13th day of May 2016)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
