Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

12/2012

V.Vivek - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Telecommunications India Pvt Ltd & Other - Opp.Party(s)

V.Vaithiyalingam

05 Aug 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 11.01.2012

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 05.08.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.12/2012

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 05^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019

                                 

V. Vivek,

S/o. Mr. V. Vaithiyalingam,,

No.4/89, Avvaithirunagar 1^st Cross Street,

Virugambakkam,

Chennai – 600 092.                                                        .. Complainant.                                            

                                                                                            ..Versus..

1. Universal Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd.,

No.281, T.T.K. Road,

Alwarpet,

Chennai – 600 018.

 

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

No.30/6E, I Floor, Deen Plaza,

State Bank Road,

Mayiladuthurai – 609 001.                                    ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant           : M/s. V. Vaithiyalingam &

                                                           another

1^st opposite party                              : Exparte                                   

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party : M/s. N. Maheswaraiah

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards compensation for losses and injuries sustained by the claimant due to the negligence of rendering deficient service and also for causing mental agony and physical hardships and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that the complainant purchased a Nokia 5233 model Mobile from Univercell Company, the 1^st opposite party on 19.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.6,105.76.   The complainant submits that he was using the Vodafone cell service having No.9884069993. The complainant’s cell phone is having theft insurance policy and the premiums also has been paid.   The complainant submits that on 30.10.2011, at about 4 p.m., when he was trying to purchase a ticket to Thanjavur from the Koyembedu Bus stand somebody pick-pocketed his mobile from his pant pocket.  The complainant has informed his service provider and got his sim card de-activated and obtained a fresh sim card on the same day.   The complainant was a student doing his animation and graphics course after completing B.Sc. Visual communication course in the S.R.M. College of Arts and Science.  He had to go to Thanjavur for his personal work and he fell ill for 10 days.  Thereby, a delay of 14 days caused in preferring police complaint. The complainant submits that his mobile had in IMEA No.357024047955629.  The complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to immobilize the phone.  So that, the pick-pocketed person cannot use the mobile phone. As per the direction of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant preferred a claim form on 15.11.2011 with the 2^nd opposite party enclosing all relevant particulars with a covering letter.  The opposite parties returned the papers for clear narration of incident of theft in English which has been furnished on 28.11.2011.  The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party sent a letter dated:16.12.2012 rejecting the claim totally on the ground of missing amounts to not theft.    The complainant submits that he is not in any way benefited by giving any such false complaint.  The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.    Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.     After receipt of notice, M/s. A. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate filed Vakalath for the 1^st opposite party but subsequently failed to file written version within the stipulated time and hence, the 1^st opposite party was set exparte. 

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the policy issued is group mobile insurance to M/s. Universal Telecommunications India Private Limited, the 1^st opposite party for covering the new mobiles being sold by them.   The said policy was issued by the 2^nd opposite party subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant purchased a new mobile from the 1^st opposite party on 19.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.6,105.76 paise and the mobile covered under the insurance policy issued by the 2^nd opposite party vide policy No.413905/48/2012/134 for the period from 21.05.2011 to 20.05.2012.  The said policy covers Fire loss, Riot & Strike, Terrorism, Theft losses, Loss arising out of Road Traffic Accidents only.  At the time of purchase of mobile, the purchasers are being informed about the insurance coverage of policy by the sales person at the stores.  If the purchaser opts for the coverage under the policy, a printed form which is treated as a certificate issued to them.  The said certificate contains the coverage details, exclusions, documents to be produced at the time of claim.  The claimant should sent the properly filled up claim form along with the required documents to M/s. Alegion Insurance Broking Ltd., the Principal Broker and claim facilitator to M/s Universal Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd., the 1^st opposite party.  The claim form submitted by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party for the theft of his mobile on 15.11.2011 along with the documents with the allegation of theft on 30.11.2011 at Koyembedu Bus stand wherein, somebody in the crowd pick-pocketed the cellphone for which, the complainant has not produced any proof.  The 2^nd opposite party states that the policy is only for “THEFT LOSSES”.   It is further submitted that the letter dated:14.11.2011 by the complainant to the Vodafone it is clearly mentioned that “I lost my mobile on 30.10.2011”.  Hence, the claim of the complainant for missing his mobile is not covered under the policy and comes under the exclusions Clause of the terms and conditions of the policy.    The claim papers were returned by the 2^nd opposite party to M/s. Alegion Insurance Broking Ltd. to handover the same to the complainant for want of certain documents.  Hence, M/s. Alegion Insurance Broking Ltd. is a necessary party to decide the claim of the complainant.  Therefore, the opposite parties submit that at no point of time, there was deficiency in service on their part and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

5.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards compensation for the loss of cellphone, deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

After receipt of notice, M/s. A. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate filed Vakalath for the 1^st opposite party but subsequently failed to file written version within the stipulated time and hence, the 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte.  Both the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party field their respective written arguments.   Heard the complainant’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that the complainant purchased a Nokia 5233 model Mobile from Univercell Company, the 1^st opposite party herein on 19.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.6,105.76 as per Ex.A1.  Further the contention of the complainant is that he was using the Vodafone cell service having No.9884069993.  The impugned cell phone is having theft insurance policy.  Due premiums also paid.  Ex.A1 is the copy of tax invoice in which, it is clearly mentioned that “Mobile Theft Insurance & Other Service is Rs.190/-“.  Ex.A4 is the copy of UniverCell Mobile Theft Insurance Claim Form and the policy is also subsisting.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 30.10.2011, at about 4 p.m., when he was trying a purchase a ticket to Thanjavur from the Koyembedu Bus stand somebody pick-pocketed his mobile from his pant pocket.  The complainant has informed his service provider and got his sim card de-activated and obtained a fresh sim card on the same day.   The complainant was a student doing his animation and graphics course. He had to go urgently to Thanjavur for his personal work and fell ill for 10 days.  Thereby, a delay of 14 days caused in preferring police complaint.  Ex.A5 is the copy of C.S.R.  

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that his mobile had IMEA No.357024047955629.  The complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to immobilize the phone.  So that, the pick-pocketed person cannot use it.  As per the direction of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant preferred a claim form on 15.11.2011 as per Ex.A4 with the 2^nd opposite party enclosing all relevant particulars with a covering letter as per Ex.A6.  The opposite parties returned the papers for clear narration of incident of theft in English which has been furnished on 28.11.2011 as per Ex.A8.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party sent a letter dated:16.12.2012 rejecting the claim totally as per Ex.A9 on the ground of missing amounts to not theft.   But throughout the case in all the places, the complainant stated very clearly the cell phone was pick-pocketed.  The rejection of claim by the insurance company is arbitrary and against the terms and conditions of the policy which amounts to deficiency in service.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.12,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

8.     The contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the policy issued is group mobile insurance to M/s. Universal Telecommunications India Private Limited, the 1^st opposite party for covering the new mobiles being sold by them.   The said policy was issued by the 2^nd opposite party subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant purchased a new mobile from the 1^st opposite party on 19.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.6,105.76 paise and the mobile covered under the insurance policy issued by the 2^nd opposite party vide policy No.413905/48/2012/134 for the period from 21.05.2011 to 20.05.2012.  The said policy covers Fire loss, Riot & Strike, Terrorism, Theft losses, Loss arising out of Road Traffic Accidents only.  At the time of purchase of mobile, the purchasers are being informed about the insurance coverage of policy by the sales person at the stores.  If the purchaser opts for the coverage under the policy, a printed form which is treated as a certificate issued to them.  The said certificate contains the coverage details, exclusions, documents to be produced at the time of claim.  The claimant should sent with properly filled up claim form along with the required documents to M/s. Alegion Insurance Broking Ltd., the Principal Broker and claim facilitator to M/s Universal Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd., the 1^st opposite party.  The claim form submitted by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party for the theft of his mobile on 15.11.2011 along with the documents with the allegation of theft on 30.11.2011 at Koyembedu Bus stand wherein, somebody in the crowd pick-pocketed the cellphone for which, the complainant has not produced any proof.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A5, C.S.R. copy, it is very clear that the mobile phone was pick-pocketed while the complainant was in the Koyambedu Bus stand. 

9.     Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the policy is only for theft losses.  Here missing of cellphone is not covered under the policy.  But nowhere the complainant stated that the cell phone was found missing.   On the other hand, the cell phone was pick-pocketed.  Further, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, due police complaint shall be given immediately or within 48 hours.  Under unavoidable circumstances delay in preferring policy complaint took place.  In this case, the complainant lodged a complaint on 15.11.2011 after an inordinate delay of 14 days.  But the complainant specifically pleaded that he was sick for 10 days.  Due intimation for de-activating the cell phone for the IMEA No.357024047955629 was given to the 1^st opposite party.   The rejection of the claim form on the ground of missing; is not acceptable since, it is very clear that it is a case of pick-pocket proves the deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the theft of mobile phone with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for theft of the mobile phone with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 05^th day of August 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	19.05.2011	Copy of bill issued by the 1st opposite party - collecting Insurance premium
Ex.A2	14.11.2011	Copy of letter to Vodafone Store by the complainant
Ex.A3	15.11.2011	Copy of complaint to Koyembedu Police
Ex.A4	15.11.2011	Copy of duly filled up Claim Form submitted to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A5	15.11.2011	Copy of receipt issued by Koyembedu Police in 197/CSR/K10Cri/2011
Ex.A6	15.11.2011	Copy of covering letter sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party
Ex.A7		Copy of Return memo from the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A8	28.11.2011	Copy of letter sent by the complainant with all enclosures to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A9	16.12.2012	Rejection letter by the 2nd opposite party - Original

   

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT