DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No./286/2019
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of disposal
23.09.2019 30.09.2019 07.02.2024
- :- Shri Daman Prosad Biswas……..President.
- Shri Abhijit Basu…………Member
Complainant:- Madhu Sudan Dey, S/o. Late Radhika Mohan Dey,
72/1/1, East Ghosh Para Rd, Gitanjali Apartment, P.O. Bhaatpara,
P.s. Jagaddal, North 24 Parganas, Pin-743123.
-Vs-
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, represented by
Regional Manager, 4, Lyons P.B. 608, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata700001.
2.M/s. Warranty & Insurance Administration Service (W & IA Services)
Proprietor- Jayanta Das, 342, 3rd Floor Vardhman DEE CEE Plaza,
Plot No.7, Sec-II, P.S. Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance DX MINI represented by
Store Manager, 114, Jan Mohammad Ghat Road,
Opp- Naihati Municipality, Rail Station , P.S.Naihati. Pin- 743165.
Judgment / Final order
Complainant above named filed this complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 read with section 13of the said Act against the aforesaid opposite parties praying for direction to remit the entire money in dispute, compensation amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and other reliefs.
He alleged that he had purchased one mobile phone onn 17.12.2017 and that date he purchased one insurance policy relating to the aforesaid mobile phone but unfortunately on 17.09.2018 said hand set was stolen. He lodged one FIR at Survey Park , P.S vide No. 135/2018 under section 379 IPC. Thereafter he contacted with the aforesaid insurance company. They called him. One of the representative of the aforesaid insurance company asked the complainant to send all the relevant documents. He sent the same and he also sent said the same through-E-mail on 22.09.2018. On 13.11.2018 representative of W and IA service sent a confirmation mail to the complainant vide docket No. 7439. But said insurance company did not pay the policy amount till date. Hence this case.
O.P. No.1 filed W.V and denied the entire allegation and further contended that the complainant has filed this case after accepting the settled claim amount of Rs. 3245 from the insurance company. He prayed for dismissal of the case.
Trial
During trial the complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. The O.P.. No.1 filed questionnaire and complainant gave answer.
O.P.No.1 filed affidavit-in-chief. The complainant filed questionnaire and O.P. No.1 filed reply.
Complainant filed the following documents at the time of filing of this case
At the time of hearing of argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant failed to produce the original copy of those documents. He submitted that the complainant already sent the original documents to the office of the O.P.No1 but Ld. Advocate for O.P. No.1 denied the same.
C.C. No./286/2019
:: 2 ::
1.Copy of FIR dated 20.09.2018 addressed to Survey Park Police Station ……..(one sheet Xerox)
2Copy of formal FIR……one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of unaddress……….. one sheet Xerox.
4.Letter of subrogation dated 27.09.18…… three sheets Xerox.
5.Copy of policy …… one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of claim form …….one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of purchased receipt ….two sheets Xerox.
- Replacement of sheet dated 19.09.2018………one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of letter dated 01.10.2018 ……..one sheet Xerox.
l0.Copy of cancel set ….. one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of Aadhar card ……one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of mail dated 13.11.2018 eight sheets Xerox.
O.P. No.1 produced the following documents:-
- Letter dated 20.01.2014 copy of notice dated 22.12.2019.
14.Copy of complaint …….one sheet Xerox.
15.Copy of documents dated 11.05.2018 …….. one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of claim payment future.
- Copy of letter dated 01.10.2018………one sheet Xerox.
-
Complainant filed BNA and O.P. No.1 filed BNA.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
We have heard the Ld. Advocate for both the sides at length. We have considered the aforesaid documents carefully.
It is admitted position that the complainant had purchased one mobile value at Rs. 9,990/- and that was insured under the O.P. No.1. It is also admitted position that said mobile was stolen at a hotel opposite side to Highland Park under Survey Park Police Station. FIR was lodged at Survey Park P.S and the fact of aforesaid incident was redressed before O.P.. No.1and other opposite parties.
It is also admitted position that O.P. No.1 accepted the incident of theft of said mobile and agreed to pay the money in favour of the complainant relating to aforesaid insurance coverage.
But O.P. No.1 agreed to pay Rs. 3,245/-and he has transferred the said amount in the bank account of the complainant by way of Neft.
During hearing of argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that the complainant is entitled to Rs.9,990/- which was covered under insurance policy.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.1 argued before this commission that the complainant was actually entitled Rs. 3,245.He has given a details of account dated 20.01.2020.
On perusal of record we find that present case has filed on 23.09.2022 and O.P.No.1 filed W.V on 20.02.2020 and before filing the W.V. they allowed the claim amount of Rs. 3,245/- in favour of the complainant and transferred the said amount in the bank account of complainant.
C.C. No./286/2019
:: 3 ::
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.1 submitted that as per the aforesaid policy complainant is entitled to 50% of the value as per their norms. But Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.1 produced one document with their W.V. wherein depreciation rate has mentioned. As the said documents did not bear the signature of the complainant, said document is not binding upon the complainant.
Accordingly we find that O.P. No.1 failed to established that complainant was entitled to Rs. 3,245/- due to coverage of the aforesaid policy.
On perusal of record we find that complainant is a consumer and O.Ps are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that the complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to full value of the mobile i.e. Rs 9,990 from the O.P. No.1 and presently he is entitled to Rs. 9990-3245= Rs. 6745/- from the O.P.No.1.
In the result the present case succeeds.
it is ordered ,
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 and dismissed exparte against the rest with cost of Rs. 3,000/-to be paid by O.P. no.1 in favour of the complainant.
O.P. No.1is directed to pay Rs.6,745/- in favour of the complainant within 45 days from this day failing which aforesaid sum shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing the claim i.e. from 09.11.2018 to till the date of actual payment.
O.P. No.1 is further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the complainant within 45 days from this date of failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order of execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per CPR of 2005.
Dictated and corrected by me
