Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/121

Preeti Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

P.S.Gumber Adv.

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:121 dated 26.02.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 26.08.2022.

Preeti Jain aged 42 years wife of Shri Munish Jain, resident of House No.128, Mall Enclave, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant 

•  

 

1. OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 707-709, Acme Plaza, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-4000059, through its Director/M.D.

IInd Address:

OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., B-24, Manubharti, Azad Lane, Off S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-4000058.

2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Manager.                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Paramjit Singh, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. G.S. Kalyan, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased one mobile bearing IMEI No.869056033430853 through Amazon vide invoice No.SATA-21417. The complainant got the mobile insured from the OPs vide membership ID 1003436397 for the period 23.09.2018 to 22.09.2019 under the plan Mobile Total Protection. During the currency of the insurance policy, on 24.12.2018, when the complainant was traveling by train from Tripur to Ludhiana from Navyug Express, the mobile was stolen. The complainant was using the mobile at night and kept it safely in her handbag before sleeping. The handbag was kept on the berth and during the night somebody stole the mobile phone from the handbag. The complainant realized at about 07.00 AM in the morning that he mobile had been stolen. The complainant called GRP control room at Itarasi railway station. One Head Constable namely Kalka Prasad No.470 visited the complainant at Bhopal station and obtained a written complaint from her. The mobile was put on IME tracking. After reaching Ludhiana, the complainant lodged an FIR No.308 dated 30.12.2018 under Section 379 IPC at Ludhiana GRP Station. The factum of theft of the mobile was reported to OP1 and a claim was also lodged through email dated 09.01.2019. However, the OPs vide email dated 20.01.2019 rejected the claim on the ground that there was no forcible or violent act involved in the theft, in the lost or disappearance of the mobile. The rejection of the claim on the part of the OPs is illegal, arbitrary and amounts deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. In the end, it has been requested that OPs be directed to pay the claim amount equivalent to the cost of the mobile along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1 and OP2. In written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that no cause of action has arisen against OP1 as the insurance was obtained from OP2 and the claim, if any, is also payable by OP2 and not by OP1. It has further been pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP1, as the claim has been rejected by OP2. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of OP2, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to OP2, on receipt of the claim, it was registered and processed. According to OP2, the policy covers the newly purchased mobile in respect of accidental damage, plus theft, plus fire and allied perils as per terms and conditions of the policy. In the policy, the theft is defined as to mean forceful, violent act by a third person resulting into dispossession of insured product. According to the case submitted by the complainant, the mobile was stolen from the bag of the complainant during night by someone. The said act does not fall within the purview of the policy as there was no force or violent act involved and the alleged theft is a case of lost/mysterious disappearance. Thus, the repudiation of the claim is strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA Sh. Sachin Jha of OP1 along with document Ex. R1 and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. J.S. Dhaap, Manager of OP2 along with affidavit Ex. R1 to Ex. R3 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 

7.                As per allegations made in the FIR Ex. C1 which is recorded on the statement of the husband of the complainant, it is mentioned that he along with his wife Preeti Jain (complainant) were travelling in Navyug Express from Tripur to Ludhiana on 25.12.2018. It is further alleged that at Itarasi station, the complainant came to know that her mobile had been stolen and in this regard, a complaint was lodged with Head Constable No.470 at Bhopal railway station. In the entire FIR, it is simply mentioned that the mobile was stolen and there is no mention of any force having been used. In the application Ex. R3 given to GRP Police Station Bhopal by the complainant, it is mentioned that the mobile was stolen when the train was somewhere in between Itarasi and Bhopal. The counsel for OP2 has referred to the policy Ex. R12 where under the column of risk cover the theft is included. The counsel for OP2 has further referred to Ex. R13 wherein the theft is defined to mean forceful, violent act by a third person resulting into dispossession of insured product. Thus, as per the policy, the claim of theft is payable only if it takes placed by forceful or violent act of a third person. In the instant case, the complainant has not given any detail nor has alleged that the theft had taken place by way of some forceful or violent act exercised by a third person. Therefore, the claim does not seem to be payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is not the case of the complainant nor anything in this regard has been pleaded in the complaint that the complainant was not aware of the terms and conditions or that the terms and conditions of the policy were not supplied to her.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Preeti Jain Vs OneAssist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd.                   CC/19/121 

Present:       Sh. Paramjit Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. G.S. Kalyan, Advocate for OP1.

                   Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate for OP2.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.