STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA `

AT HYDERABAD

                                                            FA 296 of 2014

                                                                        Against

                                    CC 14 of 2013, District Forum, Ranga Reddy

Between :

Mr. J. Mohan,

H.No. 3-15-K1/301, Sahara States

Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar

Ranga Reddy -54,

Telangana State.                                                                              . Appellant/complainant

And

1. Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt. Ltd

r/p B.Venkateswara Rao

Cheekoti complex -16, Opp-Nalanda

Dilsukhnagar Main road, Hyderabad – 29.

2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

r/p authorized signatory

corporate Business Unit, NO. 44/45,

3^rd floor, Leo shopping complex

Residency Cross road, Bangalore – 25     ..             Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant                   :           Sri K. Parandhamachari

Counsel for the Respondents             :           M/s. D. Umashankar for R-1

                                                                        M/s. Ramakrishna for R-2/

Coram            :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N. Rao Nalla             …        President

And

Sri Patil Vithal Rao                           ..          Member

Thursday, the Fifteenth Day of June

Two Thousand Seventeen

Oral order :    ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            *****

1. This is an appeal filed Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/complainant  aggrieved by the orders dated 29.11.2013 made in CC  14 of 2013 passed  by the District Forum, Ranga Reddy.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the Forum below.
3. The case of the appellant/complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a Mobile Phone for Rs.21,798/- from the first opposite party which was covered under an Insurance Policy given by the second opposite party  to first opposite party.  He came to know that his mobile was stolen in the vegetable market. On the insistence of police, he gave complaint changing his words ‘somebody had stolen ‘into ‘lost’.  On the same day, he requested the Consumer Service Manager to bar the calls to his cell phone. Police gave him a report stating that ‘they tried to trace out the mobile phone but could not succeed’.  When he claimed the insurance amount for the cell phone, OP 2 repudiated the same on the ground that the mobile hand set was lost which does not  amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence the complaint seeking direction to  the opposite parties to release Insurance Claim of Rs.21,798/- along with interest and to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with costs of Rs.5,000/- is not tenable.  

4. The first opposite party received notice but did not choose to contest the matter.

5. The second opposite party contended that the claim was repudiated  on the ground that the handset was ‘lost under Mysterious Circumstances, Disappearance/missing of hand set, forgotten or misplaced or left unattended’ is excluded and is outside the scope of the policy. The complainant in his police complaint clearly stated that he ‘lost’ the cell phone and police also issued a certificate that ‘they tried to trace out the mobile phone but could not succeed ‘.  Hence they repudiated the claim.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the appellant/complainant filed his evidence affidavit along with written arguments  and got marked Ex. A1 to A6  and on behalf of the opposite party Ex.B-1 is marked.

7. The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complaint preferred this appeal on the ground that the District Forum has not appreciated the circumstances under which the Mobile was committed the theft by an unknown person, taking the advantage of the complainant placed in the Market. The Mob and their pull and push are certainly a special cause for affecting the theft of the Mobile.

9. Counsel for R-2 filed written arguments reiterating their respective contents as stated in their pleadings and evidence.

10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?

11. There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant lost Mobile phone in question in the vegetable market.  There is also no dispute that he addressed a letter to Tata Tele Services Ltd, requesting them to bar the service of his cell phone under Ex. A-3.  There is also no dispute that Police gave Ex A-4 Certificate on 10.11.2012 that the cell phone of the complainant could not be traced in spite of their best efforts. Ex.A-6 is the repudiation letter issued by second opposite party on the ground of ‘theft’ under exclusion clause.

12.  (i)         The appellant/complainant contends that the insurance claim was repudiated by bringing the ‘theft’ of the cell phone under the category of “loss”. The appellant/complaint preferred this appeal on the ground that the District Forum has not appreciated the circumstances under which the Mobile was committed the theft by an unknown person, taking the advantage of the complainant placed in the Market. The Mob and their pull and push are certainly a special cause for affecting the theft of the Mobile.

`     (ii)         We have perused the Ex. B-1 Insurance policy.  Under exclusions, Point No.2, it is clearly mentioned that “simple loss of equipment, for example, lost , forgotten or misplaced equipment  and simple theft where forcible entry has not occurred or no violence used ” is not covered under the policy in question.  Here, in this case, the appellant/complainant lost his Mobile in the vegetable market without his knowledge and it is not a forcible one.  As appreciated by the District Forum, even though, the word , “theft’ was changed  into ‘Loss’ by the police, simple ‘theft’ without force  does not cover under the policy.  There is no averment/evidence on the record that the said cell phone was stolen by force or violence. Therefore, the said theft does not cover under the policy.  Hence the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in repudiating the insurance claim and rightly dismissed the complaint.

13. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case , we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents/ opposite parties and there is no irregularity in the order passed by the District Forum and the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. Hence there are no merits in the appeal and is liable to be dismissed.

14. IN the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                                    PRESIDENT               MEMBER

                                                                                                DATED : 15.06.2017.