IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C. 89/2014 (Filed on 18.07.2014)
Between:
Rajesh.A,
Achariparampil veedu,
Valamchuzhy,
Pathanamthitta,
Pin – 689 645. …. Complainant.
And:
1. Univercell Tele Communications,
No.IX/512 Ground Floor,
Kizhakkedathu Building,
Central Junction,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Sreeraj. D)
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
CBO – 1, India Life Building,
Trichy Road, Coimbatore,
Pin – 641 018. …. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Smt. K. P. Padmasree(Member – I):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainant purchased a Samsung Metalic Black Phone from the 1st opposite party by paying Rs.3,275/- which includes Mobile Theft Insurance of 2nd opposite party. While the complainant was traveling from Pathanamthitta to Kumbazha said mobile phone was lost and the same was complained before the Pathanamthitta Police Station. For getting the Insurance claim an application along with all documents are submitted to the 2nd opposite party. But the 2nd opposite party sent a letter to the complainant seeking the police report of the theft. On getting the letter complainant sent the police report to the 2nd opposite party. But after that, there is no response from the opposite parties. Complainant regularly contacted the 2nd opposite party for getting the insurance claim. But there is no response from the 2nd opposite party. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service towards the complainant which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting a new phone having the same price or getting the price of the phone along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.
3. In this case 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following conditions. 1st opposite party admit that complainant had purchased a mobile phone from them for Rs.3,275/- which includes theft insurance coverage. The insurance coverage was given by the 2nd opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy there is no insurance coverage for mere loss of a mobile handset. It would be evident from the allegation of the complaint itself that the complainant’s mobile handset was a mere loss due to the negligence and is not theft. Moreover while claiming the insurance the complainant has not filed or submitted all the required documents as stated in the conditions of the insurance policy. The police certificate states only about loss and there is no mention about theft and it does not state the mobile hand set is irrecoverably lost. There is no case for the complainant that the loss of mobile set is due to theft, Riot, Fire strike, etc.
4. Complainant has not fulfilled the conditions of the policy therefore complainant has no locus standi to claim the coverage. The 1st or 2nd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant. Since allegations have been made against the 2nd opposite party this 1st opposite party is not liable for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. So the 1st opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant.
5. Moreover in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy it is specifically stated that all proceedings are subject to Chennai jurisdiction. Thus the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
6. With the above contentions, 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
7. 2nd opposite party is exparte.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
9. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
10. The point:- The allegation of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile set from the 1st opposite party by paying Rs.3,275/- which includes Mobile Theft Insurance policy of 2nd opposite party, while traveling his mobile set was stolen and he claimed insurance coverage. But the opposite parties did not turned up for redressing the complainant’s grievances. Hence the complainant prays for allowing this complaint.
11. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the Tax Invoice of Rs.3,275/- dated 28-08-2012 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the Universal Mobile Theft Insurance Policy of 2nd opposite party. Ext.A3 is the certificate dated 10-10-2013 issued by the Pathanamthitta Police to the complainant. Ext.A4 is the copy of Universal Mobile Theft Insurance claim form dated 07-08-2013.
12. On the other hand, the contention of the 1st opposite party is that complainant’s mobile handset was lost due to his negligence and is not a theft. As per the terms of the policy there is no insurance coverage for mere loss of mobile handset. Moreover, while claiming the insurance the complainant has not filed or submitted all the required documents as stated in the conditions of insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the 1st opposite party.
13. In order to prove their contentions, 1st opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. But they cross examined PW1.
14. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that parties have no dispute with regard to the sale of mobile handset having theft insurance policy and its warranty. The only dispute is regarding the non-payment of insurance claim. On going through Ext.A1 tax invoice, it is seen that complainant had purchased a Mobile Handset having Theft Insurance, for Rs.3,275/-. But 1st opposite party’s contention is that said mobile phone was lost due to the negligence of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the loss of complaints mobile hand set was during a journey in a bus and it was not received back so far and hence it is a clear theft. If it was not a theft it would have been received back.
15. 1st opposite party also did not choose to file a copy of the said ‘terms and conditions of the policy’ for reason best known to him. As per Ext.A3 police certificate it is seen that ‘conduct enquiry but no use is obtained so far’. So we can’t accept the contention of the 1st opposite party that it is not a theft and hence there is no deficiency in service from their part. 1st opposite party has issued the tax invoice including the insurance premium on behalf of 2nd opposite party, the insurance company is bound to the complainant for indemnifying his loss. Luring customers into purchasing products by offering attractive schemes and also collecting extra charges for such schemes/facilities and thereafter not fulfilling the commitments made is unfair trade practice by itself is defined under section 2(1)(r) of CP Act.
16. 1st Opposite Party also claims that they asked the complainant to furnish some documents. But a copy of the said correspondence has not been filed before this Forum. In any case, Ext. A2 and A3 are adequate for the opposite parties to Honour the complainant’s claim if they really had the intention of standing by their commitments.
17. On going through the complaint and deposition of PW1 it is clear that there is no deficiency in service from the part of the 1st opposite party. Since the allegation is against the 2nd opposite party, the 1st opposite party is not liable to the complainant. Moreover, they have raised a contention that complainant has not submitted the required documents along with the claim form. That contention is also admitted by the complainant while in his cross examination. Therefore this complaint is allowing with a direction to the complainant to furnish all necessary documents to the 2nd opposite party. Hence this complaint can be allowed with certain conditions.
18. In view of our observations made above, we are of the conclusive opinion that the 2nd opposite party only is liable for their deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to claim compensation.
19. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the 2nd opposite party is directed to reimburse the amount paid by the complainant towards cost of Samsung–Handset ie. 3,275/- (Rupees Three Thousand two hundred and seventy five only) within 15 days from the receipt of the required documents from the complainant, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the mobile phone along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and cost of Rs.5,00/- (Rupees Five hundred only) with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 6th day of November, 2014.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree
(Member – I)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : A. Rajesh
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the Tax Invoice of Rs.3,275/- dated
28-08-2012 issued by the 1st opposite party to the
complainant.
A2 : Photocopy of the Universal Mobile Theft Insurance
Policy.
A3 : Photocopy of the certificate dated 10-10-2013 issued by
Pathanamthitta Police to the complainant.
A4 : Photocopy of Universal Mobile Theft Insurance claim
form dated 07-08-2013.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Rajesh.A, Achariparampil veedu, Valamchuzhy,
Pathanamthitta, Pin – 689 645.
(2) Univercell Tele Communications,
No.IX/512 Ground Floor, Kizhakkedathu Building,
Central Junction, Pathanamthitta.
(3) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, CBO – 1,
India Life Building, Trichy Road, Coimbatore,
Pin – 641 018.
(4) The Stock File.
