M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) The respondent/ complainant, who had owned a Nokia handset, which was insured with the 2nd opposite party, lost the same on 29.10.2005, while traveling in a town bus, for which he immediately lodged a complaint, before the Inspector of Police, Gobichettipalayam. Thereafter on 9.11.2005, the complainant lodged a claim before the opposite parties, submitting necessary documents. The opposite parties, insisting original FIR, not accepting the police certificate given, failed to honour the policy, thereby reimbursing the loss sustained by the complainant, which should be construed as deficiency in service. Thus alleging, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.10,500/-, being the value of the handset, for which insurance coverage was given, as well for a further sum of RS.2500/-, for deficiency, in addition to a sum of Rs.2000/-, as cost.
(3.) The opposite party, admitting the ownership of the handset, as well insurance coverage, resisted the case, contending that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, to settle the claim, registered FIR is a must, which the complainant failed to furnish, and therefore the non-settlement of the claim cannot be taken or treated as deficiency in service, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;