Delhi

North East

CC/10/2019

Ahmed Shareef - Complainant(s)

Versus

Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 10/19

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Ahmed Shareef R/o 57-A, St. No. 5/3, Babu Nagar, Delhi-110094, P.S Karawal Nagar		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.         3.         4.	Wizard Digitek Computer Pvt. Ltd. C 6/232, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053   Digital Café C 3/160, Near Jain Temple, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053   One Assist Consumer Solutions Ltd. 707-709, Acme Plaza, Opposite Big Cinemas, Andheri-kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai, Maharashtra 400059   National Insurance Co. Ltd. Stering Cinemas Building, 65, Murzaban Street, Fort Mumbai, Maharshtra 400001   Also at:- Kore 3, Label 2, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110052   Also at:- JeevanVikas Building Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-110002		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		16.01.19 04.10.23 10.01.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the on 04.01.18 Complainant purchased a mobile amounting to Rs. 14,000/- from Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.2 had insured his mobile from Opposite Party No.3 and Complainant paid Rs. 1,700/-through his credit card and Opposite Party No.3 done the insurance from Opposite Party No.4. The insurance policy period is from 05.01.18 to 04.01.19. On 15.12.18 his mobile got stolen and Complainant lodged FIR bearing no. 589/2018 u/s 380 IPC in P.S Karawal Nagar. Thereafter, Complainant called Opposite Party No.3 and official of Opposite Party No.3 told Complainant to submit documents like FIR, Aadhar card etc. on website of Opposite Party No.3 and Complainant submitted the documents on 20.12.18 and Opposite Party No.3 send all documents of Complainant to Opposite Party No.4 and Opposite Party No.4 rejected the claim. Hence, there is deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the market value of the mobile phone of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- for mental harassment. He also prayed for  Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.08.19.

Case of the Opposite Party No.3

3. The Opposite Party No.3 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of this Hon’ble Forum and therefore, liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The device of the Complainant was insured with National Insurance Company who has not been made a party to the present complaint. Since, the device was insured with National Insurance Company, the liability to pay the claim was amount is of National Insurance Company.
4. The present complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Opposite Party No.3. The cause of action never accrued against the Opposite Party No.3 as the insurance was obtained by the Complainant from National Insurance Company and claim, if any, becomes payable by National Insurance Company and not the Opposite Party No.3. Thus, in absence of any cause of action against the Opposite Party No.3, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the Opposite Party No.3.
5. It is stated that the Opposite Party No.3 is merely a service provider which arranged the insurance of the mobile handset of the Complainant through National Insurance Company. The liability of the Opposite Party No.3 was limited to act as a facilitator in registering and processing of the claim with the insurance company. It is not the case of the Complainant that the claim was not registered or the claim was not processed. Since, the claim was registered and processed by the Opposite Party No.3 which was subsequently rejected, no act of deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the Opposite Party No.3.
6. Further, the description given by the Complainant regarding the cause of loss is “on dated 15.12.15 at around 8 am when the Complainant woke up he discovered that two mobile phones were stolen from his home which were inside his room which was put on charger at around 1 am”. Since the phone was stolen in a mysterious circumstances the claim of the Complainant was rejected with the reason “the subject claim is not admissible under exclusion 1 loss or damage to the gadget due to mysterious circumstances/disappearance or unexplained reasons”.
7. It is stated that on request of the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.3 arranged an insurance cover with the insurer namely National Insurance Company with respect to his mobile “MI-A1-XIOMI” which was subject to the terms and conditions entered by the Complainant with the Opposite Party No.3. Under the said terms, the Opposite Party No.3 agreed only to facilitate the registering and processing of the claim of the Complainant with the insurance company and its liability was limited only to the plan fee. Claim settlement was at the sole discretion of the Insurance company with which the mobile was insured.

Case of the Opposite Party No.4

8. The Opposite Party No.4 contested the case and filed written statement and stated that the Complainant purchases one mobile Xiaomi MI A1 vide IMEI No. 867707037159961 on 04.01.18 and the same was covered under the Master Policy vide no. 260200591710000260, certificate no. 1002418595 on 04.01.18 from Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. vide Invoice No. WD/24372/ 2017-18 for a sum of Rs. 14,000/-
9. The claim of the Complainant was repudiated under the Exclusion 1, “Loss or damage to the Gadget due to mysterious circumstances/disappearance or unexplained reasons.”
10. Further, Opposite Party No.4 stated that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The Opposite Party No.4 unnecessary dragged in to the litigation. The Opposite Party No.4 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 and 4

11. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 3 and 4 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

12. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.3 and 4

13. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.3 filed affidavit of Shri Pankaj Sachdeva, Chief Financial Officer of Opposite Party No.3, and Opposite Party No.4 filed affidavit of Sh. Pratap Singh, Administrative Officer of Opposite Party No.4, wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

14. We have heard the Complainant in person and the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.3 and 4. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3 and 4. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a mobile phone for Rs. 14,000/- from Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 insured his mobile phone from Opposite Party No.3 and paid premium of Rs. 1,700/- and Opposite Party No.3 done the insurance from Opposite Party No.4. The insurance policy period was from 05.01.18 to 04.01.19. On 15.12.18 his mobile phone got stolen from his house and he lodged FIR in the concerned Police Station and also informed Opposite Party No.3. He also submitted untraceable report accepted by the concerned court. The Opposite Party No.3 advised Complainant to submit required documents which was submitted by the Complainant on 20.12.18. The Opposite Party No.3 repudiated his claim vide letter dated 03.01.19 on the basis of Exclusion 01 i.e. “Loss or damage to the Gadget due to mysterious circumstances/disappearance or unexplained reasons.” Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.
15.  The case of the Opposite Party No.3 is that the Opposite Party No.3 is merely a service provider which arranged the insurance of the mobile handset of the Complainant through Opposite Party No.4. The liability of the Opposite Party No.3 was limited to act as a facilitator in registering and processing of the claim with Opposite Party No.4. Since, the claim was registered and processed by the Opposite Party No.3 which was subsequently rejected, no act of deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.3 is not denying that Complainant was having valid policy at the time of loss of said mobile phone and he was putting responsibility of claim settlement on the Opposite Party No.4.
16.  The Opposite Party No.4 is admitted that there was a valid policy cover for the said mobile phone for the amount of Rs. 14,000/-. The claim of Complainant was repudiated under the Exclusion 01 “Loss or damage to the Gadget due to mysterious circumstances/disappearance or unexplained reasons.” Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.4.
17.  During the course of the arguments, Opposite Party No.4 submitted an application for deletion/exoneration of Opposite Party No.4 on the ground that Opposite Party No.3 signed a letter dated 22.03.21. The contents of the said letter are as follows:-

“ This is to confirm that we at M/s One Assist Consumer solutions Pvt. Ltd. are willing to take Rs…/-crores as on dated, as outstanding full and final settlement of our pending claims with National Insurance Co. Ltd. from 2015 till date. This amount is in addition to the claims processed (whether settled or not) by National Insurance Co. Ltd. till 21^st March 2021. This would be applicable for all the policies by us with National Insurance Co. Ltd. till date.

“… we agree that M/s One Assist Consumer solutions Pvt. Ltd. will be solely responsible for any further claims and cases relating to Consumer Forum, RTI (Right to Information Act), Grievance Cases, Court matters and similar matter for past, existing or future claims if any.”

 

18.  It is clear from the above fact that Complainant mobile phone was stolen during the validity of the policy and he lodged an FIR and filed the claim paper with Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant also filed untraceable report accepted by the competent court. The repudiation of the claim by Opposite Party No.3 on the ground that loss or damage was due to mysterious circumstances/disappearance or unexplained reasons without any supporting document or evidence in this regard. We are of the considered opinion there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3 and 4.
19.  In view of the above discussion and the application filed by the Opposite Party No.4, the complaint is allowed and Opposite Party No.3 is directed to pay Rs. 14,000/- i.e. the sum insured vide master policy no. 260200591710000260 to the Complainant with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party No.3 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation cost along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. 
20. Order announced on 10.01.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President