Date of filing: 5-11-2016 Date of order : 16-11-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Thursday, 16th day of November, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 80/ 2016
Nagella Harish, S/o Nagella Venkata Siva Raghavendra Prasad,
11/275-2, Upstairs,
M.G. Auto Nagar Road, Mydukur Road,
Proddatur, Kadapa District. … Complainant.
Vs.
1.The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, New India Building, 87,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.
2. Big C’ Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
Branch Manager, 9/587, Near Anwar Theatre,
Mydukur Road, Proddatur,
Kadapa District. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 9-11-2017 in the presence of complainant appeared as in-person and Sri K. Ramakondaiah, Advocate, for Opposite Party no.1 and Opposite party no.2 appeared as in person and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay the cost of the mobile phone Rs.24,500/- with interest @ 12 % from the date of its purchase, to pay Rs.15,000/- for causing mental agony and inconvenience and to pay Rs.6,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows :-
The complainant purchased SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE3 NEO Mobile on 12-11-2015 under invoice No.SI/PDTR/12423 and O.P.no.1 issued insurance coverage for the mobile cost and warranty period for one year and collected Rs.300/- from the complainant. Opposite party no.1 has tie up with the opposite party no.2, the mobile phone covers the risk of theft or misplaced or lost or damage on rider risk, the claim of mobile phone has to pay to the complainant.
The complainant submits that an accident took place on Dt.30-10-2015 while complainant riding the bike near church complex, while he was coming to the market due to that the complainant fell on ground and sustained injuries and mobile also fell on the ground and got damaged. He was shifted to the hospital and after first aid went to home. The hospital authorities issued receipt. The complainant submitted a representation on 12-11-2015 to the New India Insurance Company, Mumbai through Registered post narrating the incident and cause of damage of the mobile phone sending the invoice, medical receipt, and insurance claim forms and requested to settle claim. The O.P.no.2 has transmitted the claim to the Hyderabad Branch and they registered the complaint and sent claim no.1500069229. But in spite of several requests and phone calls to know the status of his claim the O.P.no2 did not give reply, even though the complainant waited for 10 months. The complainant sent reminder notice on 9-7-2016 still no reply. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3.Opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed separate written versions. Opposite party no.1 denied the allegations and called upon the complaint to prove all of them. It is further averred that according to complaint, he purchased a SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE3 NEO Mobile from O.P.no.2 on 12-11-2015 and got insured his mobile with 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party. But further mentioned he met with an accident on 30-10-2015 which is not correct. The complaint filed by the complainant is unjust, illegal, unfair, frivolous and vexatious and abuse of process of law. There is no cause of action for complainant to file the present complaint. The cause of loss narrated is inconsistent with nature of damage. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4.Opposite party no.2 filed written version denying allegations in the complaint. It is further averred that on 15-12-2014 complainant purchased SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE3 NEO Mobile PHONE UNDER INVOICE NO. SI/PDTR/12423 for Rs.24,400/- and complainant paid Rs.300/-for insurance and total bill was Rs.24,700/-. But the opposite party no.2 has not received any notice about the claim of the complainant. The O.P.no.2 is only facilitator of insurance on mobile phones to the customers of the O.P.no.2. so, he is not concerned either with the admission of the insurance claim or rejection of the insurance claim. Opposite party no.1 will take its own decision. The O.P.no.2 has no control over the business of opposite party no.1. there is no deficiency on the part of O.P.no.2. The O.P.no.2 has paid the insurance amount to O.P.no.1. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5.No oral evidence has been let in by both parties. But on behalf of complainant, Ex. A1 to A3 are marked, but on behalf of the Opposite parties Ex. B1 to Ex.B5 documents are marked.
Complainant filed written arguments. Opposite parties are not filed written arguments.
Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments filed by complainant and perused the material placed on record.
The points that arise for determination are ;
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as pleaded by the complainant ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed
against the Opposite parties ?
- To what relief ?
6.It is contended by complainant that in spite of insurance coverage to the mobile purchased by complainant on 12-11-2015 under Ex. A1 and got damaged the phone in the accident the opposite parties failed to pay the insurance amount i.e., cost of the mobile phone. Therefore he is entitled for the reliefs claimed, as there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
Per contra learned counsel for O.P.no.1 contended that the complainant had not purchased any mobile on 12-11-2015 as mentioned in the complaint and written arguments in the affidavit of complainant and no accident took place on 30-10-2015 and the complaint is filed on false grounds and no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed as not proved the claims.
7.In this case as per the averments of complaint the complainant purchased SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE3 NEO Mobile on 12-11-2015 and insured with O.P.no.1 complainant reiterated the same in his affidavit and also in the written arguments. According to him he met with an accident on 30-10-2015 which fact is also mentioned in his affidavit and written arguments filed by him. But the complainant failed to prove that he had purchased SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE3 NEO Mobile phone on 12-11-2015 and he insured the same with O.P.no.1 as he did not file any corresponding bill or invoice to the said purchase. Even though he filed Ex.A1 invoice the same is dated 15-12-2014 which does not tally with the date mentioned in the complaint, complainant affidavit and written arguments. According to complainant he met with an accident on 30-10-2015 and got damaged his mobile phone but the complainant failed to explain how he met with accident on 30-10-2015 and got damaged his mobile phone purchased from O.P.no.2 on 12-11-2015. The documents filed by the complainant under Ex. A1 does not reveal, he purchased the SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE3 NEO Mobile phone from O.P.no.2 on 12-11-2015 and he insured the same with O.P.no.1. As per Ex.B2 he mentioned the date of damage of phone is on 6-10-2015 which is not at all tallying with accident date mentioned in complaint as 30-10-2015. Therefore there is ambiguity in the pleadings of complainant and the documents filed by him as such we hold the complainant failed to put forth his claim properly and correctly and failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. Hence we find no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as pleaded by complainant and complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed against them. Accordingly point no.1 and 2 are answered against the complainant.
Point no.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 16th day of November, 2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Invoice worth of Rs.24,400/- issued by the Big-C Mydukur Road,
Proddatur on 15-12-2014.
Ex. A2 Reminder letter Dt. 9-7-2016.
Ex. A3 Quotation for repairing of Mobile, Dt. 7-11-2015.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party : -
Ex. B1 P/c of Declaration form damage claim by complainant.
Ex. B2 P/c of claim form given by the complainant.
Ex. B3 P/c of UIB Summary Report-BIG C Mobiles.
Ex. B4 P/c of Receipt, Dr. Pramila Ranga Reddy Hospital.
Ex. B5 P/c of Medical Bills Dt. 6-11-2015.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Nagella Harish,
S/o Nagella Venkata Siva Raghavendra Prasad,
11/275-2, Upstairs,M.G. Auto Nagar Road,
Mydukur Road, Proddatur,Kadapa District.
- Sri K. Rama Kondaiah, Advocate, Kadapa.
- Big C’ Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Branch Manager,
9/587, Near Anwar Theatre,
Mydukur Road, Proddatur,Kadapa District.
P.R.
