BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                                        Consumer complaint no. 178 of 2016.    

                                                                        Date of Institution:     20.7.2016.

                                                                        Date of Decision:     6.12.2016        

Sachin Sharma son of Shri Karamveer, resident of Ward No.25, Sardarpura Baas, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

                                                                                                     ………Complainant.

                                                Versus

1.  Wadhwa Mobile Care, Near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its proprietor.

2. Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd., 4 SSK Saphire Plaza, Pune Airport Road, Near Symbiosis College, Pune- 4101-14.  

                                                                                          ……… Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

   Before:                    SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                                    SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.

Present:                    Shri V.S. Sihag, Advocate for complainant.

                                    Opposite parties exparte.   

ORDER

                        In brief, case of complainant is that he had purchased a Sony Xperia Mobile from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.19,500/- vide bill dated 14.10.2015 and he also got insured the said mobile from op no.2 vide insurance policy No.24097598 covering all kinds of risks. On 31.3.2016, the complainant was going to Banipark from Laal Kothi (Rajasthan) through bus and there was a lot of rush in the bus. When he got down from the Bus at Banipark (Jaipur), he came to know that some unknown person stolen his mobile from his pocket. The complainant tried his best to trace out the same at his own level but failed. Immediately thereafter, he intimated op no.2 about the loss of the mobile through mobile insurance claim form dated 31.3.2016 and claimed Rs.18,000/- on account of loss of the mobile. Thereafter, he immediately contacted the concerned police authorities through a written application and requested them to lodge the necessary report with regard to theft of his mobile but he was not listened. Ultimately, he filed a criminal complaint in the Court at Jaipur and learned Magistrate directed the concerned police officials to register FIR and thereafter, FIR No.121 dated 10.5.2016 under Section 379 IPC was registered in police station Banipark. Then complainant approached the op no.2 and requested to indemnify his claim under the aforesaid policy but op no.2 kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and now a week ago op no.2 has refused to indemnify his claim. Hence, this complaint.

2.                     Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. OP no.2 did not appear despite issuance of notice through registered cover and was proceeded against exparte. OP no.1 did not appear despite due service and was also proceeded against exparte.

3.                     In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, mobile insurance claim form Ex.C4 and copy of deed of indemnity and subrogation Ex.C5.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.                     The pleadings and evidence led by the complainant are unrebutted and unchallenged as opposite parties have failed to appear before this Forum and have opted to be proceeded against exparte. The opposite party no.2 is the insurer of the mobile in question and it has come on record that opposite party no.2 being insurer of the mobile in question is liable to indemnify the complainant for an amount of Rs.18,000/- against theft etc. of the mobile in question. The complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2 towards him as op no.2 has failed to pay the claim amount of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant against the insured mobile which was stolen on 31.3.2016. However, complainant has not sought any relief against opposite party no.1.

6.                     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.2 and direct the op no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant for the loss of the insured mobile in question within a period of two months from today, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. However, complaint against op no.1 is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                                             President,

Dated:6.12.2016                           Member.                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                              Redressal Forum, Sirsa.