Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/300/2014

Sanapala Sailaja - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Inusurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanapala Karuna

01 Jan 2015

ORDER

 

Reg.of the Complaint:19-09-2014

                                                                                                                                 Date of Order:01-01-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

 

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.300/2014

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

SANAPALA SAILAJA W/O S.KARUNA,

HINDU, AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.39-19-57/1,

MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-17.

…COMPLAINANT

AND:

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SITUATED AT

DIVISIONAL OFFICE-III INDIA LIFE BUILDING

TRICHY ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 018.

 

…OPPOSITE PARTY

This case coming on 30-12-2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI S.KARUNA, Advocate for the Complainant, and the OP being absent, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

 

ORDER

(As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)

1.     The present complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party to pay the insured amount of Rs.8,642/-, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards causing mental agony and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband purchased a Samsung S 6102 (Galaxy Y Duos) IMEI NO.352272058201335 in her name on 15-12-2012 and gifted the same to her and the same was insured by the OP and as it was stolen in the Court premises in the month of February, 2013, she gave a  police complaint on 18-12-2013 and thereupon intimated the same to the OP by way of claim form dated 29-11-2013 along with original bill dated 15-12-2012 and on that the OP through their letter dated 23-12-2013 rejected the same on the ground of delay of 10 months in submitting the claim and Sim deactivation acknowledgement belongs to some other name and on that she gave a detailed notice on 10-02-2014 explaining the reasons for the delay etc., and the same was acknowledged by the OP but there was no response. Hence, this complaint.

3.     The Opposite Party in spite of received the notice, called absent, for the reasons best known to it.

4.     To prove the case of the complainant, she filed her evidence affidavit and also got marked Exhibits A1 to A7.

5.     Exhibit A1 is the Tax Invoice bearing No.1497961 dated 15-12-2012, Exhibit A2 is the Subscriber Receipt dated 22-02-2013, Exhibit A3 is the FIR dated 30-04-2013, Exhibit A4 is the Claim Form dated 29-11-2013, Exhibit A5 is the letter issued by the OP dated 23-12-2013, Exhibit A6 is the Lawyer’s Notice dated 10-02-2014 and Exhibit A7 is the Acknowledgement.

6.     The Complainant filed her Written Arguments.

7.     Heard the oral arguments of the Complainant.

8.     Now the point that would arise for determination in this case is?

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the complainant are entitled to any reliefs asked for?

9.     As can be seen from the Evidence Affidavit of the Complainant , she had sworn to the relevant contents of the complaint and her evidence is corroborated by Exhibit A1 dated 15-12-2012, Tax Invoice No.149761 that her husband purchased Samsung mobile i.e., Samsung S 6102 (Galaxy Y Duos) IMEI NO.352272058201335 in her name on 15-12-2012 and gifted the same to her. Exhibit A2 dated 22-02-2013 is the subscriber receipt issued by the BSNL Tele Shopee Visakhapatnam. Thus, A1 and A2 clearly and categorically go to show that a Mobile, referred supra, was purchased by her husband and gifted the same to her. Exhibit A4 and A5 disclose that the mobile purchased vide Exhibit A1 was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

10.    Thus, on a careful reading of the Evidence of Complainant together with Exhibit A1, A2, A4 and A5, it is evident that the mobile covered under Exhibit A1 was purchased by the husband of the complainant and gifted it to her and the same was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited which are uncontroverted by the OP, therefore, it can be held that the evidence of complainant in this behalf is unchallenged.

11.    It is the further case of the complainant that as somebody stolen her mobile in the court premises in the month of February, 2013, she gave police complaint with II Town P.s., Exhibit A3 is the copy of FIR which clinches that on presenting the report of the complainant and the others, they registered case in crime no.203/13 on 30-04-2013. Her sworn affidavit further reads; she intimated about the missing of her mobile and made a claim by way of claim form dated 29-11-2013 but it was rejected by the OP through letter dated 23-12-2013 on the ground of delay in submitting and Sim deactivation acknowledgment belongs to some other name. Exhibit A6 notice was issued by the complainant on 10-02-2014 to the OP stating the reasons for the delay and the Sim Card deactivation receipt is in the name of her husband only and requested for arrangement of insurance as early as possible, but, it appears no reply was sent by the OP. Now, it is to be seen whether the grounds urged by the OP in rejecting the claim of the Complainant is in accordance with the rules.

12.    Exhibit A4 Universal Mobile Theft Insurance Form clearly shows what are the documents to be submitted at the time of claim. On a careful reading of them, we are of the considered view that inspite of the complainant complied with all the relevant rules i.e., submitting claim form, police report, original invoice which cause to show in spite of the complainant gave the report, within the period of insurance claim and the Sim deactivation acknowledgement is in the name of her husband, the OP failed to settled the claim of the complainant. Thus, it can be held that there is clear cut deficiency of service coupled with negligent attitude on the part of the OP. For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to the insured amount of the mobile phone for a sum of Rs.8,642/- and some compensation and costs too due to the deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice and also negligent attitude on the part of the OP.

13.    Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of Complainant that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Party and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss.   It is a un-dispute fact that the Opposite Party did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 2,500/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.2,500 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

14.    Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum, had his claim for refund of the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Parties within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

 

15.    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the OP to pay the insured sum of Rs.8,642/- (Rupees Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty Two only) towards cost of the Mobile Phone, besides a compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five hundred only) and also costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant. Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 1^st day of January, 2015.

     Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

L.MEMBER                                        M.MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A-1	15-12-2012	Tax Invoice bearing No.1497961	Photostat Copy
A-2	22-02-2013	Subscriber copy	Photostat Copy
A-3	30-04-2013	FIR	Photostat Copy
A-4	29-11-2013	Claim form	Photostat Copy
A-5	23-12-2013	Letter issued by the OP	Photostat Copy
A-6	10-02-2014	Lawyer’s Notice	Office Copy
A-7		Acknowledgement	Original

 

Exhibits Marked for the OP     -nil-

 

   Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

L.MEMBER                                        M.MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT