CHANDIGARH MAYOR Asha Jaswal got relief from the consumer courts on Wednesday as the latter directed a company, which provides phone security software, to pay a compensation of Rs 12,000, including Rs 5,000, as cost of litigation, to her as the firm had repudiated the claim. Jaswal had bought a handset along with the security policy of Syska Gadget Secure. When she sought a claim after her phone was stolen, the company repudiated her claim.
Passing the order, the consumer court said, “After going through the evidence, it is crystal clear that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, in case of a total loss or theft, 25 per cent will be deducted from the total invoice value of the handset and the remaining amount will be transferred to the customer’s account. The complaint is allowed and Syska Gadget Secure is asked to give compensation.”
The consumer courts further stated that the sole grouse of the mayor is that despite protection from theft, as per the policy of Syska Gadget Secure, her genuine claim was refused for the reason that the theft, in the present case, was not a forceful act. Therefore, it is not covered by the policy. Speaking to Chandigarh Newsline, the mayor said, “The phone companies nowadays sell the security policy while purchasing a phone and they reject the claim when one seeks it.” Asha Jaswal, a resident of Sector 21, stated in the complaint that she had bought a Samsung Galaxy Alpha Mobile Phone in June 2015 from a shop named Bombay Communications at Sector 35.
The handset was worth Rs 26,008. Jaswal said the salesman at the shop convinced her to purchase a Syska Gadget Secure Policy the same day while assuring the mayor that her phone was protected from theft, physical damage and anti-virus.
On the intervening night of September 11/12, 2015, the mayor’s phone was stolen from her handbag at a marriage at AKM Resort, Zirakpur. She then lodged a complaint with police and the SIM card was blocked. The mayor had filed the complaint by calling a toll-free number of the company within 48 hours. However, her claim was rejected on the ground that there was no forceful act. She then filed a case in the consumer courts in April 2016.
The company, in its reply, stated that a claim is usually refunded only in cases when the phone is lost due to theft (which is a forceful act). However, in the present case, nothing as such had happened. Therefore, the claim did not come under the policy’s terms and conditions and it was rejected.