CC No.1955/2015

Filed on 05.12.2015

Disposed on: 21.07.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JULY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1955/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

PRESENT:

    Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

            PRESIDENT

                 Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                          MEMBER

                                            V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 05.12.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay the basic cost of the Instrument and insurance premium of total amount of Rs.15,789/- with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the complaint till realization and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:-

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that on 02.07.2014 he has purchased smart phone mobile Model Lenovo P 780 Dual BLK for Rs.15,790/- from the 1^st Opposite Party, he was persuaded by the sales man of the 1^st Opposite Party to take an insurance coverage for protection of the smart phone mentioned above and the Complainant has  purchased insurance mobile policy for mobile device protection for Rs.2,653/-.  On 22.06.2014 the Complainant was in his office, at night 8.30 p.m while he was coming out of the office, he received a call while making the call, the mobile phone accidently slipped from the cover and fall on the floor and rolled over the stair case. After the above said accident the phone is not working properly and one of the main switches also lost in the accident.  Subsequently, he went to Ezone and informed about it they kept him waiting for long hours and gave a telephone number 18001036024 contacted the customer care and as per their instruction he logon to cl.tecprotec.asia and downloaded the form and printed and filled the form with documents he sent to them.  Subsequently, the insurance policy No.OIC/2014/TP /FC/00450, Oriental Insurance Co., Mumbai.No601-605, Town Centre-1, Mittal Estate, Nr.Sakinaka, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400059 was given to him.  There was no response till date they have not issued insurance policy to the Complainant.  Subsequently upon several mails at last they sent a mail stating that accidental fall of the mobile does not cover under the policy and hence the claim was rejected.   Hence this complaint.

3. Even though notice was served on Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have failed to put their appearance.  Hence, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 placed ex-parte.
4. The Opposite Party No.3 put his appearance through his Counsel but fails to file his version. 

5. The Complainant, Sri.Byju K.John has been filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  Heard the arguments of Complainant.

6.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

7.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:- It is the case of the Complainant that on 02.07.2014 the Complainant has purchased smart phone mobile Model Lenovo P 780 Dual BLK for a sum of Rs.15,790/- this fact has not been denied or disputed by the Opposite Parties.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Invoice.  As looking into this document, the Complainant has purchased smart phone mobile Model Lenovo P 780 Dual BLK from the 1^st Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.15,790/- on 02.07.2014.  This evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged.  Thereby, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant. 

9. It is further case of the Complainant, the sales man of the 1^st Opposite Party persuaded the  Complainant to take an insurance coverage for protection of the smart phone and the Complainant has purchased insurance mobile policy for mobile device protection by paying a sum of Rs.2,653/-, even this fact has not denied or disputed by the Opposite Parties.  Further to substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Invoice issued by the Opposite Party No.1, which clearly reveals that the Complainant by paying a sum of Rs.2,653/- purchased policy i.e., mobile device protection.  This evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged.  Therefore, there is no contra evidence to discard the evidence of the Complainant.  Hence, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant.

10. It is further case of the Complainant that on 22.06.2014, when the Complainant was in his office, at night 8.30 p.m while he was coming out of the office, he received a call, while making the call, the mobile phone accidently slipped from the cover and fall on the floor and rolled over the stair case. After the above said accident the phone is not working properly and one of the main switches also lost in the accident.  Subsequently, he went to 1^st Opposite Party and informed about it they kept him waiting for long hours and gave a telephone number 18001036024 contacted the customer care and as per their instruction he logon to cl.tecprotec.asia and he submitted Claim Form and documents with Opposite Party No.3.  There was no response from the Opposite Party No.3 till date and subsequently upon several mails at last they sent a mail stating that accidental fall of the mobile does not cover under the policy and hence the claim was rejected, even this fact has not denied or disputed by the Opposite Parties.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the mail correspondence, it clearly reveals that the Complainant after his mobile fell down from his hands and due to this accident phone was not working.  This was intimated to the Opposite Party No.1 & 2, on the advice of Opposite Party No.1, he filed a Claim Form.  This is very clear, by looking into this Claim Form, the Opposite Party No.3 who is the Insurer ought to have honour the claim of the Complainant instead of that they rejected the claim of the Complainant.  On the ground that accidental fall of the mobile does not cover under the policy.  The Opposite Parties have not taken any such defence and also have not adduced any evidence.  The contention of the Opposite Parties that accidental fall of the mobile does not cover under the policy.  In that event, the Opposite Party No.3 ought to have place some evidence but there is no such evidence.  Thereby, it is not proper to accept the reason of the Opposite Party  No.3 in rejecting the claim of the Complainant.  On the other hand, as looking into the terms and conditions there is no such contention that accidental fall of the mobile does not cover under the policy, thereby the rejection of the claim of the Complainant by the Opposite Parties is not proper.  On the other hand, even though the Complainant has purchased the policy from the Opposite Party No.3, it is bounded duty of the Opposite Party No.3 nor the claim of the Complainant.  Thereby, the rejection of the claim of the Complainant amounts to unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party No.3 as well as the deficiency of service, thereby the Opposite Party No.3 is liable to pay the value of the mobile i.e., Rs.15,789/- but there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  Thereby the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are fails to give proper service to the Complainant by rectifying the defect found in the mobile purchased by the Complainant due to accidental slip thereby, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are liable to pay the value of the mobile.  Hence, this point is held in the Affirmative.    
11. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service by the Opposite Party No.1 to 3.

The Complainant is directed to return the damaged handset to the Opposite Party No.1, after receipt of the damaged handset within 30 days.

The Opposite Party No.1 to 3 are directed to refund the value of the handset a sum of Rs.15,789/-.

The Opposite Party No.1 to 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony.

The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost. 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 21^st day of July 2017)

         MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT
 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Byju K.John, the Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Invoice and Payment receipt dt.02.07.2014
2. Registration Form dt.02.07.2014
3. Services of Email dt.21.06.2015 to 24.06.2015

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

                                      -NIL-

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                                      -NIL-

     MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT