BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Monday, 13th June 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 94 / 2015
Bathala Meghana Gowri, D/o B. Venkata Ramana,
Hindu, aged about 22 years, Residing at D.No. 20/951,
Co-operative colony, Kadapa / YSR District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
DO III, 323, Chenoy Trade Centre, Park Line,
Secunderabad – 500 003.
2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Opp. To APSRTC, Bus stand, Kadapa city. …..Respondents.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 06-6-2016 in the presence of Sri G.M.B. Murali Krishna, Advocate for Complainant and Sri K. Rama Kondaiah, Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Respondents to pay Rs.20,720/- towards cost of the mobile phone along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of theft till realization, to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of this compliant.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy – G, 7102 mobile phone on 31-3-2014 for Rs. 22,720/- at Big – C shop at Kadapa and the said phone was covered insurance coverage with policy No. 551800/46/13/9500000120 issued by R1 for the period from 31-3-2014 to 30-3-2015 . The Complainant was joined in Job Oriented Programme at Gachibowli, Hyderabad staying in a women’s hostel. On 19-10-2014 when she was going to her hostel a person taken her mobile for calling her relatives and left the place without handing over the said mobile phone to her. The Complainant made her best efforts in tracing out the person and mobile, but in vain. The Complainant gave a complaint in Gachibowli police station, Hyderabad on 19-10-2014 but police authorities could not trace the mobile phone though they registered a complaint as Cr. No. 509/GB/CYB, dt. 19-10-2014. The Complainant submitted a claim form to R2 i.e. Insurance Company with all details and R2 received the claim but not settled the claim for the best reasons known to them. The Complainant made number of repeated demands but not settled the claim. On 26-9-2015 the Complainant sent legal notice to settle the claim still not settled. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. Hence, the complaint for the above relief’s.
3. Respondents 1 & 2 who are National Insurance Co. Ltd., filed common counter denying the allegations in the complaint and called upon the Complainant to prove all of them. It is further averred that handing over the mobile phone by the Complainant on a request to some one cannot be called as theft. Due to negligence of the Complainant it is attributed as theft of her mobile phone. There is no contractual obligation on the part of the Respondents to pay any amount as claimed by the Complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. The negligence and carelessness is specifically excluded under the policy. Thus these Respondents are not liable to pay the amounts claimed by the Complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for against the Respondents?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A10 documents are marked and on behalf of Respondents Exs. B1 and B2 documents are marked.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the written arguments filed by the Complainant and the documents filed by both parties.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The Respondents admitted in their counter that the mobile phone purchased by the Complainant was insured with R1 and the insurance was inforce at the time of its lost by the Complainant. According to Complainant, she used phone at Hyderabad and when she was going to hostel from her college one person took her phone with a request to phone her relatives but skulked away with the mobile and in spite of her best efforts the Complainant could not trace the person and mobile. So at last she gave a complaint to police station at Gachibowli, though the police registered a case but failed to trace out the mobile phone and gave Ex. A4 stating that inspite of efforts the mobile could not be traced. As seen from Ex. A2 the mobile phone purchased by the Complainant under Ex. A3 cash bill the said mobile phone has insurance coverage for the period from 31-3-2014 to 30-3-2015 and the policy covers theft of mobile phone also.
8. The only contention raised by the Respondents counsel is that the handing over of mobile phone from Complainant to some unknown person and the said person taking away of the mobile does not amount to theft and the Complainant lost her mobile phone only due to her negligence and carelessness. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in rejecting the claim made by the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for reliefs.
9. Learned counsel for Complainant contended that taking away of the mobile phone from Complainant without her consent amounts to theft and there was valid coverage of insurance. The Respondents ought to have settled the claim but not settled. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for the releifs.
10. There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the Complainant. As already noted there is no dispute between parties regarding purchase of mobile phone by the Complainant and doing insurance for it with insurance company for the period from 31-3-2014 to 30-3-2015. Adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for Respondents, we did not see any reason to uphold the same. Though the Complainant handed over her mobile phone to unknown person to talk with her relatives it does not mean that she was allowed to take away the mobile phone. The unknown person, who took the phone from the Complainant and went away with mobile phone without consent of Complainant, amounts to theft only. There was no consent by the Complainant while handed over her mobile phone to unknown person to take away the same. So the unknown person, who took away the mobile phone of Complainant from that place and not traced by the Complainant in spite of her efforts amounts that unknown person committed theft of mobile pone of Complainant. Since, the mobile pone of Complainant was committed theft and the mobile phone was covered with insurance under Ex. A2, Exs. B1 & B2 for theft also, the Respondents ought to have honoured and settled the claim of Complainant. But they failed to settle the same. Therefore, we see deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in not settling the claim. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs, though not fully as claimed. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the Complainant.
11. Point No. In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the Respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 20,720/- (Rupees twenty thousand seven hundred and twenty only) towards costs of the mobile, to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 12% p.a. till realization. The rest of the claim of Complainant is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 13th June 2016
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex.A1 Xerox Copy of Claim Form, Dt. 19-10-2014.
Ex.A2 Xerox Copy of Insurance Policy, dt. 31-3-2014.
Ex.A3 Xerox copy of Cash Bill, Dt. 31-3-2014.
Ex.A4 Xerox copy of complaint registered by the madhapur Police Station,
Dt. 19-10-2014.
Ex.A5 Xerox copy of Bank Account Book, Dt. 7-6-2013.
Ex.A6 Xerox copy of Aadhar Card.
Ex.A7 Xerox copy of Voter ID. Card.
Ex.A8 Office copy of legal notice, Dt. 26-9-2015.
Ex.A9 Postal Receipts.
Ex.A10 Postal acknowledgements 2 in nos.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents:-
Ex.B1 Original Insurance policy copy.
Ex.B2 Terms and conditions of the policy.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri G.M.B. Murali Krishna, Advocate for Complainant.
- 2) Sri K. Rama Kondaiah, Advocate for Respondents.
B.V.P
