Complaint filed on: 25-06-2010 Disposed on: 23-10-2010 BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 C.C.No.1449/2010 DATED THIS THE 23rd OCTOBER 2010 PRESENT SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER Complainant: - GDR Krishana, aged 45 years, S/o. late G.V.Damodara Naidu, Residing at No.1334, 26th Main, 27th Cross, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bangalore-70 Represented by his authorized Person V/s Opposite parties: - 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, D.O.-VI, 5th Floor, Skylark building, 60 Nehru Palace, New Delhi – 19 Reptd by its authorized manager 2. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Phase-II, Surajapur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida (UP) Dist. Gautam Budhanagar, Uttar Praqdesh-201301 Reptd by its Authorized manager 3. United India Insurance Co Ltd Branch manager, PB No.5340, 1st floor, No.25, MG Road, Shankaranarayan building, Bangalore-01 O R D E R SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., The grievance of the complainant against the Ops in brief is, that he had purchased a mobile phone for Rs.15,999/- from the 2nd OP on 22-11-2009 and had insured that mobile phone with the insurance company i.e. OP No.1. That he lost his mobile phone on 4-12-2009 and immediately lodged a police complaint at Banashankari police. Then he with all necessary papers made a claim with the 1st OP for reimbursement of the mobile phone cost against which OP No.1 through their letter dated 18-1-2010 informed him to have closed his claim for having not submitted FIR. That he had filed a complaint to police immediately after the theft of the mobile phone and police informed him that in case of this type charge sheet will not be filed. Despite issue of reminders and legal notice, Ops have not reimbursed the cost of the mobile phone and therefore has prayed for a direction to Ops to pay him Rs.15,999/- with interest at 18% per annum and to award compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Ops No.1 and 3 have filed their common version and OP No.2 has filed separate version. OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the mobile phone against whom no deficiency is attributed and their accountability is not established as such we do not wish to go in detail to the version field by this OP. 3. Ops No.1 and 3 admitted have issued an insurance policy covering the mobile phone of the complainant. These Ops have not denied the extent of insurance covered under the policy issued. These Ops denied their knowledge about theft of the mobile phone but have contended that the complainant did not furnish FIR to them therefore the terms of the policy are not fulfilled. Despite requests made to the complainant the complainant did not fulfill the requirements, therefore they closed the file of the complainant. Therefore denying their liability have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the authorized representative of the complainant and an official of the Ops No.1 and 3 have filed their affidavit evidence. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of invoice, copy of endorsement issued by the police, after receipt of the complaint and a copy of letter he had addressed to the 1st OP and copy of repudiation letter issued by OP No.1 on 18-1-2010 with a copy of legal notice got issued to OP No.1. Ops have not produced any documents. 5. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. At the time of arguments the counsel for Ops No.1 and 3 has produced a copy of the policy, copy of claim application. 6. On the above materials following points for determination arise. 1) Whether the complainant proves that Ops No.1 and 3 have caused deficiency in their service in not reimbursing the cost of the mobile phone which was lost? 2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to? 7. Our findings are as under: Point no.1: In the affirmative Point no.2: See the final Order REASONS 8. Answer on Point No.1: As could be seen from the contention of the parties, there is no dispute between them, in this complainant having had insured his mobile phone worth Rs.15,999/- with OP No.1 through OP No.3 the branch at Bangalore. The complainant has come out with this complaint when Ops No.1 and 3 refused to reimburse the cost of the mobile phone under the insurance policy. Ops No.1 and 3 in support of repudiation of the claim of the complainant have contended as if the complainant had not produced copy of the FIR. The counsel for Ops No.1 and 3 in the course of arguments have filed a claim processing document which says in the event of hand set loss the buyer should follow the understated procedure that is required to lodge FIR to the concerned police within 24 hours, block the SIM card, send information to the insurance company within 7 days and produce original invoice, original certified copy of FIR, complete claim form cum bill and discharge voucher. Ops No.1 and 3 in their version have only stated that the complainant did not furnish FIR and therefore they refused to honour the claim. 9. The complainant in support of his stand that he had submitted all the documents to OP No.1 produced a copy of letter dated 7-12-2009 in which he has referred to had forward original invoice, original of duplicate SIM certified copy of the acknowledgement of police authority, claim form duly filled and signed. Ops No.1 and 3 have not denied receipt of this letter and the documents enclosed under it from the complainant. The complainant has produced copy of endorsement issued by the police for having had lodged police complaint on 4-12-2009 on the same day of theft of his mobile phone. What more documents required by Ops No.1 and 3 is not understandable. It is not the case of the Ops that they were not informed of theft of the mobile phone by the complainant. Despite receipt of necessary documents, Ops No.1 and 3 have refused to honour the claim of the complainant, which is not to the reasons. On seeing the letter of Ops dated 18-1-2010 the repudiation letter, Ops have given very inconsistent and evasive grounds for repudiation. We also failed to understand what Ops No.1 and 3 mean of FIR on the complaint given by the complainant if the police have not taken further action in the matter for their own reasons, the complainant cannot be punished. Ops No.1 and 3 after receipt of insurance premium amount agreeing to reimburse the loss can not turn back and reject the genuine claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds, which amounts to deficiency in the service of Ops No.1 and 3. Hence, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order: ORDER Complaint is allowed. Ops No.1 and 3 are jointly and severally are directed to reimburse Rs.15,999/- to the complainant within 50 days from the date of this order. Failing which, they shall pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of this complaint till the date of payment. Ops No.1 and 3 shall also pay cost of Rs.1500/- to the complainant. Complaint against the 2nd OP is dismissed. Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 23rd October 2010. Member Member President
| | [HONORABLE Ganganarsaiah] Member[HONORABLE Sri D.Krishnappa] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Anita Shivakumar. K] Member | | 
