| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/93/15 of 7.5.2015 Decided on: 6.8.2015 Narinder Singh s/o Sh.Jaspal Singh resident of 1-Hem Bagh, Opposite Shiv Mandir, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - UB Insurance Associates, Apps-mobile Claims Division,S 204/205, Suraj Plaza, 196/8, 25th Cross, 8ty Main Jayanagar 3rd Block Bangalore 5600 11, through its Divisional Manager.
- FI Info Solutions and Services Private Limited,SCO-274, 1st Floor, near Nirman Theatre, Sector 32D,Chandigarh, through its Manager.
- Tejinder Singh,Prop.,City Telecom,Bahera Road, Patiala.
…………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Smt.Kusum Sood, Advocate For Ops: Exparte ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT - It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased one mobile hand set make Apple model I-6-16GB bearing IMEI No.3520700669461991, golden colour on 17.10.2014 from Op no.3 for Rs.53500/- which included Rs.1800/- meant for the insurance. Op no.3 assured the complainant at the time of the purchase of the mobile hand set that the insurance of the mobile phone covers the replacement in respect of the full damage to the set due to fall, fire, water, accident etc.
- On 16.1.2015, when the complainant was conversating on his mobile phone that suddenly he got a push from somebody and the same made the mobile phone fall resulting into the damage to the mobile hand set. The complainant had been making a use of the mobile phone with utmost care.
- The complainant immediately contacted Op no.3, who advised him to visit the office of Op no.2. Accordingly the complainant visited Op no.2 on 17.1.2015 where his queries were attended to by one Ishan Shara.The complainant was informed the estimated cost of the damaged parts, as per the standard price list of the company at Rs.23,500/-. The complainant was obliged to submit certain documents with the Ops, for which purpose he had to visit Op no.2 thrice to comply with the demands of photocopies of the documents which had already been submitted. He had to visit Chandigarh repeatedly for the sake of furnishing the photo copies of the documents only, which resulted into the harassment and the financial loss suffered by the complainant.
- On 5.2.2015, the mobile hand set of the complainant was replaced on payment of Rs.23500/- made in cash by the complainant. As regards the insurance claim, the complainant was directed to submit some documents with Op no.1 and to pursue his claim. At the time of the purchase of the mobile hand set, he was assured that as per the insurance policy, the mobile hand set will be replaced immediately without any payment but the complainant had to suffer the mental agony on account of the payment made by him. The complainant had to pursue his claim with op no.1. The complainant sent the documents to Op no.1 through DTDC courier and before the same were sent by the complainant, the same were duly checked by Ishan Sharma, employee of Op no.2 as also TSM Sukhwant Singh and TSM Inderjit Singh of Op no.1 at Patiala.
- The complainant was surprised to receive an e-mail dated 26.1.2015 whereby the total loss of the hand set on replacement basis was assessed at Rs.16744/- only and he was obliged to submit all the documents in original although he had provided the same to Op no.1 with the scanned copies as assisted by Op no.2 and the TSM of Op no.1.Nevertheless, the complainant sent all the documents in original as demanded by Op no.1 through courier. Again an e-mail was received by the complainant asking the complainant to send the documents showing IMEI number of old hand set as also the replaced hand set clearly visible. The said was a demand of the Op just to delay the claim of the complainant and to cause the harassment and mental agony to the complainant as IMEI numbers of both the sets were clearly visible in the copies sent through e-mail as well as through courier. All the ops were required to work in tandem because IMEI number is always available in the data bank of the company but unfortunately in the matter of settling the insurance claim, arbitrary and baseless demands were being raised, which resulted into the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant. The complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice dated 13.3.2015 through his counsel but to no effect. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to pay the loss assessed in respect of the damage caused to the mobile hand set; to pay a sum of Rs.one lac by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant because of the malafide intention and the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and further to award the complainant with costs of the complaint.
- The cognizance of the complaint was taken against the Ops but who despite service failed to come present and were accordingly proceeded against exparte.
- Here, it may be noted that the Forum received the written version on behalf of Op no.1 through post on 29.6.2015 after the Ops having been proceeded against exparte on 24.6.2015, but there being no provision contained under the Act to receive the written version through post, the same can not be taken into account.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and his counsel closed the evidence.
- The complainant filed the written arguments.We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
- From the allegations made in the complaint, it would come out that the complainant has virtually filed the complaint against Op no.1 in respect of the reimbursement of Rs.23500/- spent by him in getting his mobile phone rectified from Op no.2, on the basis of the assurance given by Op no.3 that the insurance of the mobile covers the replacement of the mobile hand set on account of full damage, due to fall, fire, water accident etc, regarding which there is no role of Op no.3, the seller of the product.
- The complainant purchased the mobile phone from Op no.3 on 17.10.2014 vide cash memo Ex.C9. Ex.C9, does not contain any assurance regarding the replacement of the mobile hand set due to fall, on account of fire, water etc. and rather it is the case of the complainant that the price of the mobile hand set i.e. Rs.53500/- included Rs.1800/-towards the insurance of the mobile hand set. No document of insurance is, however, either produced on file or tendered in evidence. Ex.C2 is the copy of form–C (covering letter) purportedly sent by US Insurance Associates ( Apps Daily Claims Division)S-204/205 Suraj Plaza 196/8, 25th cross 8th Main Jayanagar 3rd block Bangalore 560011 Karnatka, which apparently pertains to Op no.1 but the same is not shown to have been addressed to anybody including the complainant nor there is any subject matter of the letter. The other document produced on file by the complainant is Ex.C3, copy of mobile hand set Insurance Claim Form , pertaining to Narinder Singh, in respect of estimated loss of Rs.23500/-. Then there is another document i.e. Ex.C4, which is copy of Form 2C incident report, to have been submitted by the complainant Narinder Singh, regarding the damage caused to the mobile hand set on 16.1.2015. The another document produced on file by the complainant is Ex.C5, the copy of the performa estimation/quotation dated 17.1.2015, which according to the complainant was provided by one Ishan Sharma of Op no.2 disclosing the estimate of the parts of the mobile hand set at Rs.23500/-. The other document produced by the complainant is Ex.C6, the copy of tax invoice dated 5.2.2015, issued by Op no.2 in the name of the complainant showing the invoice amount of Rs.23500/-.Ex.C7 is the copy of the service delivery challan dated 5.2.2015, to have been issued by Op no.2 regarding Iphone 6, MM-TD-16GB Gold bearing old IMEI No.352070069461991 and new IMEI No.358367062257218.Ex.C8 is the copy of apple swap letter dated 5.2.2015 to have been issued by Op no.2 in favor of the complainant with regard to the old damaged set bearing IMEI No.352070069461991 having been replaced with the set bearing IMEI No. 358367062257218.
- From none of the aforesaid documents, we have been able to find out that the mobile hand set purchased from Op no.3 was ever insured with Op no.1 and the complainant made the payment of the premium of Rs.1800/- as alleged in the complaint.
- In any case, as per the averments made in the complaint, the grievance of the complainant remained against Op no.1 regarding the reimbursement of the amount of Rs.23500/- paid by the complainant to Op no.2 in getting the mobile hand set rectified and no relief whatsoever is sought against Ops No.2&3. Op no.1 is stationed at Bangalore. Therefore, this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint against Op no.1. The complaint was admitted by the learned members of the Forum, in the absence of the author of the order and who by way inadvertence skipped to see the point of jurisdiction. Similarly they also failed to see whether there was any document of insurance, on the basis of which the complainant claimed the relief against Op no.1. There being no document of insurance, which has not even been referred to in the complaint and as a mere averment is made in Para no.4 of the complaint that at the time of the purchase of the mobile hand set, Op no.3 had assured that the insurance of the mobile covers the full damage, replacement due to fall, by way of fire, water and accident, the complainant cannot be granted any relief on the basis of mere averments made in the complaint and without being supported by any documentary evidence. May that as it be, the complaint being not maintainable against Ops no.2&3, it would appear that the Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint against Op no.1.Even on merits, the complainant has failed to establish his claim against Op no.1.Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Pronounced Dated: 6.8.2015 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member Member President | |
