Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/52/2019

Anjana Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Singh

22 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/52/2019
Date of Institution	:	01/02/2019
Date of Decision	:	22.11.2022

 

Anjana Verma wife of Rakesh Verma resident of #1630, Mohalla Raj Prohit, Mani Majra, Chandigarh 160101.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through its Co-founder and Director/Managing Director/Authorized Agent having its Registered office at 707 to 709 Acme Plaza, Kurla Road Andheri East, Mumbai 400059.

2.   Capital First Ltd. through its Executive Chairman and Managing Director, having its registered office at one Indiabulls Centre, Tower 2A &2B, 10^th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Patel(West) Mumbai 400013.

3.   Electrowave SCO NO 1093, Mori Gate Mani Majra, Chandigarh 160101 through its proprietor/Managing Director/authorized agent.  

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                        

ARGUED BY		None for the complainant.
		Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, counel for OP no.1 Sh. Vipul Dharmani, Adv. for OP No.2. OP No.3 exparte.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1. Briefly stated the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia XA1 Ultra/BLK from OP No.3 financed through OP NO.2 vide invoice dated 2.2.2018 Exhibit C-1.  On the insistence of OPs No. 2&3 the complainant got the mobile in question insured from OP No.1. The complainant received the Delivery Advice DA No. DA4788844 dated 2.2.2018 from OP No.1 through OP No.2&3, which was kept with it by OP No.3 on and gave on 4.9.2018.  It is pleaded that the complainant paid Rs.1999/- to the OP No.1 towards the insurance cover. It is pleaded that the insurance cover of the mobile in question  included 24x7 call centre assistance 100% cashless repair with coverage of heavy spare parts, providing assistance and protection in case of accidents, breakage and liquid damages.  It is further stated that unfortunately the product in question got damaged by accident and stopped functioning. The complainant immediately approached the OPs No. 2&3.  The complainant on the asking of OP No.2 submitted the DA NO. DA4788844 dated 2.2.2018 with OP No.2 on 5.9.2018 after getting the same from OP No.3 on 4.9.2018. The complainant on the advice of OP No.2 on 5.9.2018 filed online complaint with OP No.1 on its web portal.  The complainant uploaded all the documents on the web portal of the OP No.1 on 7.9.2018.  However, to the utter surprise of the complainant the OP No.1 on 10.9.2018 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant should have informed about the damage within 48 hours. It is alleged that the complainant informed the Op No.3 on 2.9.2018 itself about the damage. The complainant also visited the regional office of OP No.2 on 3.9.2018 and on many other dates for Redressal of his grievance but the claim of the complainant was illegally rejected by the OP No.1. Alleging the aforesaid act of the OPs deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed by the complainant. 
2.      In its written statement the OP No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the handset in question was insured by National Insurance Company through the answering OP. The liability of the answering OP is only to facilitate the registering and processing the claim of the complainant with the insurance company who insured the mobile handset in question. It is asserted that the complainant was required to raise the claim within 48 hours, however, she failed to do so and approached the company after 5 days i.e. on 7.9.2018, therefore, the claim was rejected on the ground of delayed claim. It is denied that the complainant filed the claim on 5.9.2018 rather the same was filed on 7.9.2018. It is stated that the complainant had an option to directly call the toll free number of the answering OP to raise the claim which was not done. Instead the complainant approached the OP No.2 and lastly the OP No.1. The complainant should have directly approached the answering OP as the OPs No.2&3 has nothing to do with the insurance claim. Denying all other allegations leveled in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3.  In its written statement OP No.2 stated that it only provided the durable loan facility to the complainant in order to purchase the mobile handset in question on the request of the complainant. It is vehemently denied that the OP No.2 advised the complainant to get the insurance cover for the handset in question from OP No.1. Further the OP No.2 paid the premium to OP No.3 on the request of the complainant. It is admitted that the delivery advice was sent by OP No.2, however, the same was sent to the OP No.3  for approval and disbursement of the loan amount for the purchase of mobile in question by the complainant including the charges of premium of insurance paid on request of complainant as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It is averred that the answering OP is only a financer and has no concerned with the damage of mobile handset and insurance claim thereof.  Further liability if any of replacement of the handset in question or any insurance claim is of the OPs No.1 and 3. All other allegations made in the complaint against the OP No.2 have been denied being wrong.  A prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. The Opposite Parties No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 2.4.2019.
5. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. The main grievance of the complainant is that in spite of paying Rs.1999/- to the OP No.1 towards One Assist Insurance Premium(P), it failed to reimburse the legitimate claim of the complainant. 
9. On perusal of Exhibit C-2 it is observed that OP No.2 had approved loan amount of Rs.29,799/- towards the cost of the product in question and the insurance premium. It is also admitted fact that the OP No.3 issued sale invoice date  2.2.2018 towards the price of the product(Exhibit C-1). The terms and conditions of the insurance in question of OP No.1 is also placed on record as Exhibit C-3. It is clear from the record that after damage to the handset in question the complainant visited several time the OPs for settlement of the claim, however, it is evident from record that the same was rejected on the ground that the complainant should have intimated about the damage within 48 hours. On examination of records it is apparent that the handset in question got damaged on 2.9.2018 and complainant has informed the OP No.3 on the same day i.e. 2.9.2018 and to OP No.2 on 3.9.2018. Since the said insurance of OP No.1 was obtained by the complainant through OPs No. 2&3, and as such OPs No.2&3 acted as an agent of OP No.1 and they were duty bound to further intimate the same to OP No.1. Hence, we are not very much convinced with the stand of OPs that there was delay of more than 48 hours regarding intimation of damage to the handset in question.  Thus, the OP No.1 has wrongly rejected the valid claim of the complainant; hence, the OPs are deficient in rendering service.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund the invoice price of Rs.27,800/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of claim filed by the complainant till realization.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-to the complainant towards compensation.
3.  to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- towards litigation costs.

11.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i)&(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member