DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.159 of 08-06-2017

Decided on 21-03-2018

Ranjeev Kumar aged about 38 years S/o Hem Raj R/o Geeta Bhawan Road, Ward No.6, Maur Mandi, Distt.Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Bhagwati Telecom, Thana Road, Maur Mandi, Distt. Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner.

2.SyskaGadget Secure, Leehan Retails Pvt Ltd, 4^th Floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, S.No.232, New Airport Road Near Symbosis, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Vipin Sharma, Advocate.

Opposite party No.1: Ex-parte.

For opposite party No.2: Sh.N.S Narula, Advocate.

ORDER

Jarnail Singh, Member

1. The complainant Ranjeev Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Bhagwati Telecom and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 8.9.2016, he purchased one mobile handset make Samsung model J-2 for Rs.9500/- vide invoice dated 8.9.2016 from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 conveyed the complainant that it has tie-up with opposite party No.2 i.e insurance company and allured him to get his mobile handset insured from opposite party No.2 through it. It was also conveyed that as per insurance policy, in case of any damages (including all breakages, theft etc) to such mobile handset, opposite party No.2 will refund him total price. Being assured by opposite party No.1, the complainant got his mobile handset insured from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 by payment of Rs 700/-.

3. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant stared using the mobile handset for his personal use. On 22.4.2017 at about 8.30 PM, he was going for after meal walk. During this time, he received the telephonic call from his friend and while he was talking to his friend, two boys plying there hit him from back, which unbalanced him and mobile handset fell down and resultantly, its screen was broken. He gave intimation regarding the loss immediately to opposite party No.1, it asked him to lodge the complaint with opposite party No.2 on toll free No.180030027090. Accordingly, he narrated the incident on the toll free customer care number. They lodged the complaint vide complaint No.91704231806. The officials of opposite party No.2 assured the complainant to approach him for settlement of insurance claim.

4. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.1 failed to pacify his grievance. Opposite party No.2 also did not make any effort to approach the complainant. He many times contacted opposite parties telephonically and requested them to settle his lawful claim and make payment, but evertytime, they tried to postpone the matter on one or other pretext and stopped to attend his calls.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. He has prayed for directions to opposite parties to settle his claim and make payment of Rs.9500/-. He has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

5. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it whereas opposite party No.2 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version.

   In the written version, opposite party No.2 has raised the legal objections that the complainant has filed the complaint on wrong facts and by misusing the provisions of 'Act'. He has no cause-of-action or locus-standi to file the complaint. He has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and filed the complaint to cause harassment to opposite party No.2.

6. It is pleaded that the true facts are that after purchase of the mobile handset, the complainant got his mobile handset insured and terms and conditions were supplied to him. Opposite party No.2 has tie up with National Insurance Company for meeting the claims of the consumers. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was bound to intimate opposite party No.2 regarding the bill number, date and time of purchase of the mobile handset, but the intimation given by him did not match with records of opposite party No.2 and there was difference regarding the date of purchase of the bill mentioned by him and in the bill. As such, his claim was rejected due to the reason 'because purchase date on bill mismatch from the date register in CMS, customer changes have been done in CMS after rejection' and further that 'as per insurance policy, this changes can not be accepted to process the claim'. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant was rejected. He has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy and submit the proper and exact information to opposite party No.2. As such, as per rules and regulations of opposite party No.1, when the customer fails to comply with the terms and conditions and to lodge his proper claim with proper and correct particulars, he is not entitled for any claim.

7. Further legal objections are that the complaint is totally false one. It has been filed by misusing the provisions of 'Act'. As such, it is liable to be dismissed with special costs.

8. On merits also, opposite party No.2 has reiterated its stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

10. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 10.10.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of insurance card, (Ex.C2); photocopy of message, (Ex.C3); photocopy of claim form, (Ex.C4); photocopy of vat invoice, (Ex.C5); photocopy of e-mail, (Ex.C6) and closed the evidence.

11. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Pramod Lakade dated 6.2.2018, (Ex.OP2/1); photocopy of e-mail, (Ex.OP2/2) and closed the evidence.

12. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

13. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

14. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

15. Some facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.1. Invoice, (Ex.C5) proves this fact. It is also not disputed that he got his mobile handset insured from opposite party No.2. Insurance card and message, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3) prove this fact. It is also not disputed that the complainant submitted the claim with opposite party No.2 regarding his damaged mobile handset. Claim form, (Ex.C4) proves this fact. In the written version, opposite party No.2 has also pleaded that the intimation given by the complainant did not match with its records and there was difference regarding the date of purchase of the bill mentioned by him and in the bill. As such, his claim was rejected. The complainant has produced on record claim form, (Ex.C4), which proves that he submitted duly filled claim form alongwith required documents including photocopy of original bill as mentioned in this form with opposite party No.2. The date of purchase is duly mentioned in the copy of original bill sent to opposite party No.2. Moreover in e-mail, (Ex.OP2/2), opposite party No.2 itself has mentioned the wrong date of purchase of mobile handset as 7.9.2016. Therefore, rejection of claim of the complainant is not sustainable and correct. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 to settle the claim to the complainant within the reasonable time.

16. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

17. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

18. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

19. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. As there is shortage of postal stamps, parties can also collect the copy of order personally/through counsel against receipt. File be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    21-03-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member