Haryana

Panchkula

CC/57/2018

AKSHIT MEHTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE RETAIL LTD - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

14 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	57 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	19.03.2018
Date of Decision	:	14.06.2019

 

Akshit Mehta S/o Sh. Joginder Mehta, R/o House No.248, Sector-8, Panchkula, Haryana, Pin code-134109.

(also presently working as Planning-Officer, Class-I, Gazetted, Divisional Town Planning Office at Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.)

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Retail Limited, through its Managing Director/Director/Dealer/Authorized signatory, Ground Floor, First Floor, SCO 322-323, Sector 9, Panchkula, Haryana, Pin Code 134109.

 

2. Mobile Care, Samsung Service Centre, through its authorized signatory/owner/partner/Manager/Director, SCO 62, First Floor, Swastik Vihar, Sector 5, MDC (Mansa Devi Complex), Panchkula, Haryana, Pin Code 134109.

 

3. M/s Warranty and Insurance Administration Services (W and I A Services), through its partner/Manager/Administrator/authorized signatory/Director, 342, IIIrd Floor, Vardhman DEE CEE Plaza, Plot No.7, Sector 11, Dwarka, Near Delhi, Pin Code 110075.    

 

4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager/authorized signatory/Managing Director, Jeevan Darshan LIC Building, N.C. Kelkar Road, PUNE, Maharashtra, Pin code 411030.                                                             

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties:   Complainant in person. 

                        Mr. Sanjib Pabbi, Advocate for OP No.1.

OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 19.11.2018.

None for OP No.3.

                        Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Advocate for OP No.4.

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that that the complainant has purchased a mobile handset namely Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus from OP No.1 vide bill dated 06.05.2017 amounting to Rs.64,900/-. The complainant  has also paid an extra amount of Rs.4,539/- to OP No.2 and 3 in lieu of the insurance policy which covered the risk of theft and accidental insurance (one year free insurance + one additional year insurance) of the said mobile phone with OPs No.3 and 4.  Unfortunately, on 03.06.2017 the back glass of the mobile phone had got damaged. On 05.06.2017 the complainant visited OP No.2 for repair of damaged back glass of the phone, who stated that fresh part/accessories were not available in the store at that time due to its fresh launch in India and an estimate of new back glass of the mobile phone amounting to Rs.4275/- was given to the complainant by OP No.2. On 07.06.2017 the insurance company was informed by the complainant regarding the damaged back glass of the mobile phone through the email, who replied the same day vide email. On 05.08.2017 the front glass/LCD of the phone got damaged and on the same day the complainant visited the OP No.2, who told the final amount of estimate/quotation of repair plus labour cost etc. of the mobile was framed estimating to Rs.19445.98. On 07.08.2017 the complainant telephonically informed the OP No.3 regarding the damage of said mobile phone as well as estimate of repair. In compliance to which the complainant was told to get his mobile phone repaired and submit his damaged parts of the phone and other necessary documents within a month time after the date of repair of the phone. On 12.08.2017 an email was sent by the complainant to the OP/insurance company for seeking approval for grant of NOC for mobile damage claim of estimated cost of Rs.19,445.98, for which on 14.08.2017, the reply was given to said mail upon which he requested for mobile in question with requisite documents from the complainant for reimbursement of claim. On the same date, the complainant submitted the damaged handset/mobile for repair to OP No.2. On 01.09.2017 the damaged handset got repaired and was collected after the telephonic intimation of repair from the OP No.2 to the complainant. The requisite documents in compliance with and fulfilling the terms and conditions as repaired and informed by the OP/insurance company to the complainant vide email dated 14.08.2017 were sent by way of courier to OP/insurance company by the complainant. The OP/insurance company was also informed by the complainant regarding the courier of all the requisite documents through email dated 04.09.2017. In this regard confirmation regarding receiving of all the documents on 13.09.2017 were intimated to the complainant. Thereafter, no other document was asked/required/pending by the OP/insurance company. Thereafter, several times complainant requesting the OP/insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant. On 23.02.2018 a rejection letter of claim dated 19.01.2018 has been received by the complainant. On 26.02.2018, after rejection of insurance claim by the OP/insurance company, the complainant visited OP No.1/Reliance Store for help in this regard as the insurance was done at the Reliance Store, as there tie up is with the OP/insurance company. On advice from the OP No.1, the complainant again sent an email along with all the documents, but no response regarding the settling of claim has been received by the complainant till date. This act and conduct of the OPs No.3 and 4/Insurance company amounts to deficiency in service on their part; hence, this complaint.

2.     Upon notice, OPs No.1, 3 and 4 have appeared to contest the present complaint and filed their separate written statement.

        In its written statement, the OP No.1 has stated that there is no direct/indirect allegation against the OP No.1; hence, the complaint is not maintainable against OP No.1 as no cause of action has arisen against the OP No.1. The OP No.1 is a seller of various electronic items of many manufacturers at its stores only like Apple, LG, HTC, Samsung, Micromax etc. including Samsung. The stores of the OP No.1 cater to its customers with different requirements. The dispute, if any is between the complainant, manufacturer and insurance company. The claim is with regard to the damage of the back glass and the front glass of the mobile phone which took place on 03.06.2017 and 05.08.2017 and the claim of claimant for Rs.19,445.98  was rejected by the insurance company; hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed qua OP No.1.

        In reply the OP No.3 has stated that the mobile handset in question bearing IMEI No.357851080250538 was insured by Oriental Insurance Company, via Policy No.161100/48/2018/635 for which on 20.09.2018, the complainant submitted his claim documents as per the policy terms and was deposited to the insurance co. vide Claim No.161100/48/2018/005046. However, the claim found to be unfit for settlement/payment as per the policy terms and have issued a no claim letter to that effect and further requested the Forum to omit the name of OP no.3 from the array of OPs as there is no lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.3.

        In its written statement, the OP No.4 has stated that the complainant is neither a consumer nor any deficiency or unfair trade practice have been exercised by the OP No.4 and therefore, the present complaint is liable to be rejected being not triable by this Forum. Further, the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands as he has concealed material facts to grab easy money from the OP/insurance company and hence, the contract of insurance if proved any, stand vitiated on this ground alone. The OP submitted that though it has not caused any delay and deficiency etc. as alleged yet it is submitted that the liability if any held against it, shall be strictly in terms of the contract of insurance if found valid and effective on the date of loss covering the risk thereof. Further, the complaint is not supported by a proper affidavit which is cryptic and hence cannot be taken cognizance of and the same is therefore liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

        On merits it has been stated that the complainant has not produced the original policy of insurance qua his mobile coverage. The complainant is duty bound to prove submission of any such document to the OP with regard to the claim in question. The complainant is duty bound to justify all these requirements and then make allegations of non settlement of the claim by the appropriate authority. The ordinate delay of about three months in the alleged intimation of the claim in itself is sufficient to reject the claim which appears to be a manipulation and not a fact. The complainant is duty bound to submit requisite information and documents to the insurers/authorized persons as per the agreement and in absence of the same, the complainant cannot claim any delay or deficiency on the part of those parties in any manner. The decision with regard to payment of the claim shall always be subject to terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the peril covered if any under the same. The claim has been correctly rejected on legally tenable grounds and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complainant is not entitled to any claim; hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.4 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed qua OP No.4.  

        Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through registered post vide No.EH768811880IN on 04.10.2018, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OP No.2; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP No.2, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 19.11.2018.

3.     In the replication/rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the OPs No.1,3 and 4.

4.     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-27 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence. The ld. counsel for the OP No.4 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R4/A along with documents Annexure R-4/1 to R-4/3 in evidence and closed the evidence.

        On the other hand, the OP No.3 did not adduce any evidence despite availing several opportunities including the last opportunity. Therefore, the evidence of the OP No.3 was closed by this Forum vide its order dated 08.04.2019.

5.     We have heard the complainant and ld. counsels for OPs No.1 and 4 and gone through the entire record available on the file minutely and carefully.

        It is evident that the complainant purchased a mobile handset, namely, Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus from OP No.1 vide bill dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure C-1) amounting to Rs.64,900/-. It is also evident that the complainant paid an extra amount of Rs.4,539/- to OP No.2 and 3 in lieu of the insurance policy dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure C-1 and C-2) which covered the risk of theft and accidental insurance. It has been revealed that the back side of the glass of the mobile set got damaged on 03.06.2017 for which repair estimate amounting to Rs.4,275/- was given to him by OP No.2 and the OPs No.3 and 4 were informed about the same by the complainant on 07.06.2017. It is further revealed that the front glass of the mobile set also got damaged on 05.08.2017 for which repair estimate amounting to Rs.19445.95 was prepared by OP No.2 about which the OP No.3 was duly conveyed, who asked the complainant to get it repaired vide email dated 14.08.2017. The complainant got repaired the mobile set and sent all the relevant papers including repair bill etc. which were duly acknowledged by the OP No.3 vide email dated 19.09.2017. Further, the complainant has been found to have sent various emails dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure C-21), 25.01.2018 (Annexure C-22) and 15.02.2018 (Annexure C-23) to OP No.3 requesting to settle the claim. The OP No.3 vide its letter dated 19.01.2018 conveyed the complainant that his claim has been rejected as the same was not filed within the prescribed period. Insofar, as the claim of the complainant with regard to the first incident relating to damage on the back side of the set is concerned, we find that same was conveyed and lodged by the OP No.3 beyond a prescribed period of one month; hence no fault can be attributed on the part of the OP No.3 with regard to first incident relating to damage on the back side of the set.

6.     Now, coming to the second incident causing damage to the front glass of the mobile set to the tune of Rs.19048/- as per repair bill prepared by OP No.2, we find that the complainant had duly sent all the relevant papers to the OP No.3 on 01.09.2017 i.e. within a period of one month from the date of lodging of claim i.e. 14.08.2017. We find that the complainant was given an estimate amounting to Rs.19,445.98 by OP No.2 for the repair of the mobile set on the day of incident itself on 05.08.2017 and thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.3 for obtaining the approval of the said estimate in response to which he received the email dated 14.08.2017 from the OP No.3, which is reproduced as under:-

        “Requesting the complainant to send the following documents within 1 months from the date of  claim intimation for claims reimbursement after getting the handset/Laptop/Tab repaired from any of the authorized repair center of the brand within 1 month from the date of intimation with following documents- original repair bill, etc.”

        From the above, it is clear that the complainant was requested to send the documents within the period of one month from the date of claim of intimation. The complainant after obtaining the necessary repairs sent all the papers to OP No.3 on 01.09.2017 i.e. within a period of one month as required vide email dated 14.08.2017 Annexure C-10. Hence, we find no lapse on the part of the complainant while sending the required documents with regard to the claim to the OP No.3; thus, the rejection of the claim on the ground that necessary papers were not sent within time is not correct and justifiable.  

7.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no doubt with regard to the lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.3 and 4 while delivering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.  

        The complainant has alleged no deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 and 2; thus, the complaint qua OPs No.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed.

8.     As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.3 and 4:-

1. That the Ops No.3 and 4 shall refund the amount of Rs.19048/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization.

 

2. The Ops No.3 and 4 shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.3,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and further to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation charges.

9.     The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to Ops No.3 and 4  failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the Ops No.3 and 4. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced

14.06.2019      Dr.Sushma Garg   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                            Member              Member                              President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini                               

                Member