w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s Shakti Paul Sharmaa & Others

    Appeal No. 05 of 2019

    Decided On, 28 September 2021

    At, Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. RAJESH K. ARYA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: S.S. Sidhu, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1, Devinder Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Padma Pandey, Member

This appeal is directed against an order dated 10.12.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh, now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.804 of 2017, filed by the complainant, with the following directions: -

“9. In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a] To pay a sum of Rs.80,500/- being the insured amount of the iPhone to the Complainant, along with interest @9% per annum from the date of loss, till it is actually paid;

[b] To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c] To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

The complaint against Opposite Parties No.3, 4 & 5 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

10. The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of loss, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].”

The facts, in brief, are that complainant/respondent No.1 got his brand-new

Apple iPhone-6 Plus Gold (128 GB) purchased vide bill dated 08.01.2015 for Rs.80,500/- insured with Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 through Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 after paying the requisite premium of Rs.3900/-. It was stated that on 27.11.2015, the said iPhone was snatched at the outskirts of Village Sandholi, Baddi and on the same day, besides intimating the Police, due information was also given to Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 for lodging a claim vide Annexure C-2. It was further stated that the Respondent No.1/Complainant, without any delay, sent all the requisite documents of the iPhone as required by Respondent No.2 for reimbursement of the claim and constantly followed up the status of his claim (Annexures C-3 to C-6, colly.). It was further stated that the Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 vide e-mail dated 25.02.2017 informed the complainant that his claim cannot be processed as he failed to submit the requisite documents timely (Annexure C-10). It was further stated that a legal notice dated 09.03.2017 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but to not avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1, 3, 4 & 5 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.

The Opposite Party No.2 filed its reply and stated that tie-up between the answering Opposite Party and Opposite Party No.1 ended on 11.11.2015, as the Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 got the insurance policy cancelled and taken refund of premium from answering Opposite Party. It was further stated that the alleged loss does not fall under the insurance policy period and the answering Opposite Party is not concerned with the present claim in any manner. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, partly allowed the complaint, as stated above.

Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

We have heard the Counsels for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

On-going through the records of the learned District Commission, we find that the Opposite Party No.1/respondent No.2 did not appear during the proceedings of the present case before the learned District Commission and was proceeded ex-parte. Therefore, the averment made by the respondent No.2 through e-mail that he did not submit the claim documents within the prescribed time of claim intimation, does not carry any weight.

As regards to defence taken by the appellant that UV Insurance Associates i.e. Respondent No.2 got the insurance policy cancelled and taken refund of premium from the appellant is not supported by any concrete evidence. Perusal of the e-mails on record and the written statement of the appellant clarifies beyond doubt that insurance premium for the said iPhone was received by the appellant. The appellant’s company, though has received the requisite p

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

remium did not provide services required to the respondent No.1, proved that there is deficiency in service writ large on the face of the appellant and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
O R