Punjab

Sangrur

CC/293/2017

Harman Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uni Com India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sumir Fatta

17 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  293

                                                Instituted on:    03.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       17.11.2017

 

 

Harman Arora son of Sh. Paramjit Singh, resident of H. No.22, Krishna Basti, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Uni com India Private Limited, SCO 4, PUDA Complex, Laddowal Road, Jalandhar, through its Authorised Signatory.

2.             Jaidka Communication, Bada Chowk, Sangrur through its Proprietor (given up vide order dated 5.7.2017).

3.             The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

For Opp.party No.3  :       Shri Amit Bhalla, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.2  :       Given up.

For Opp. Party No.1 :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Harman Arora, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a mobile set of Samsung having model number G-235F vide invoice number 198 dated 21.5.2016 from Shri Sham Enterprises, Kotkapura for Rs.55,900/- having IMEI number 357327070794348 and the same was got insured from OP number  1 through OP number 3 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.5000/- to the OP number 2.  The case of the complainant is that the mobile in question was stolen on the way when the complainant was coming to Singh Ice Cream Parlour, Sangrur on 13.3.2017 at about 12.30 PM and the complainant immediately lodged the complaint with the PS City Sangrur vide DDR number 15 dated 13.3.2017 and intimation was also given to OP number 1.  Thereafter the complainant submitted the required documents to OP number 1 and further the OP number 1 demanded the copy of FIR, but no FIR was lodged, but the OP number 3 refused to entertain the claim of the complainant.  The complainant thereafter got served a legal notice dated 24.3.2017 for payment of Rs.55,900/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.55,900/-  along with interest @ 9% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 2 was given up by the complainant on 5.7.2017.

 

3.             Opposite party number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was proceeded exparte.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is premature. On merits, it is stated that the complainant never approached the OP, so the question of refusing to listen the genuine claim of the complainant does not arise at all.  Further case of the complainant is that though the surveyor Adarsh Associates appointed by the OP sent a letter dated 19.5.2017 to the complainant and demanded documents such as, SIM blocking letter, call detail, box with left over accessories, FIR, but the complainant failed to submit the documents with the surveyor and further case of the OP is that the surveyor sent another letter dated 27.5.2017 to the complainant and demanded the same documents, but the same were not supplied, as such, it is stated that the complaint is premature one.  Lastly, the Op number 3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 3  has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/10 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. 

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had availed the services of the OP number 3 by getting insured his mobile in question. It is further admitted that the mobile set in question of the complainant was insured and the same was lost on 13.3.2017. Now, the case of the complainant is that despite submission of the intimation of the theft of the mobile set in question and other documents to the OP number 3, the OP number 3 has not settled the claim of the complainant.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 3 is that the complainant never lodged any claim with the OPs nor submitted the required documents such as SIM blocking letter, call details, box with left over accessories, FIR etc., as such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 3 has been denied in toto.  Though the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-3 copy of DDR, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, Ex.C-9 claim form etc. but the claim of the complainant has not been settled. But, the stand of the OP number 3 is that the complainant has never submitted any of the documents to the OP number 3. In the circumstances of the case,  we feel that the ends of justice would be met, if the complainant is directed to first lodge the claim with the OP number 3 and submit all the required documents in support of his claim and thereafter the OP number 3 shall decide the claim of the complainant.

 

8.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the complainant to submit the documents to the OP number 3  under proper receipt within a period of 15 days and thereafter the OP number 3 shall decide the claim of the complainant within a period of thirty days of the submission of the documents by the complainant. It is made clear that if the complainant still remains unsatisfied after the decision of the OP number 3, it is open for the complainant to approach this Forum again, if so he desired.   In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

9.             A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        November 17, 2017.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member