Delhi

North East

CC/421/2022

Dr. Nadeem UI Islam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Blessing Bubblesh - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.421/22

In the matter of:

 

	Dr. Nadeem UI Islam, R/o C-12/202, Yamuna Vihar, North East, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
	Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., Office No. 103, First Floor, Ackruti Star, MIDC Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400093, Maharashtra   Also at: A Block, C Block, Sector 44, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201303	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

21.11.2022 28.05.2024 29.08.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 26.07.2020,

he purchased an electric bike from Shyam & Company. Complainant stated that the said vehicle had having a valid insurance policy for a period of 01 year through Opposite Party. On 06.01.2022, the said vehicle was theft from the parking of the resident/clinic of the Complainant. Complainant stated that he informed the Opposite Party as well as police regarding the said incident and he also provided all the required documents and information to the inquiry officer. Complainant stated that on the same day an E-FIR was lodged by the police/inquiry officer and at the same time he had informed the Opposite Party through telephone/email and his advisor. Complainant stated that after a detailed enquiry and investigation a Final Report (Non traceable report) had been filed before the concerned court and the same was accepted by the Hon’ble court. Complainant stated that on 06.01.2022, he submitted the claim form along with complete required documents to the Opposite Party for the claim of his bike. Complainant stated that Opposite Party required more documents which were provided by him. Complainant stated that vide a letter dated 04.07.2022, Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant which was illegal and unacceptable. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 61,990/- i.e. value of the bike, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental harassment and also prayed for litigation cost.

2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.02.2023.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that his bike was stolen on 06.01.2022 from the parking of his clinic/residence. The said two wheeler was insured by the Opposite Party. The Complainant lodged FIR with the police but the two wheeler could not be recovered. Complainant also informed the Opposite Party and lodged the claim with the Opposite Party. His claim was repudiated by the Opposite Party. On the following ground:

• Insured vehicle was stolen on intervening night 05/06^th Jan 2022 from parked place in front of H.No. C 12/202, Yamuna Vihar, New Delhi 110053.
• As per insured, vehicle was duly locked but it was not chained by any additional chain system. There was a negligence on the part of Insured for not locking the vehicle with an addition chain system.

5. The Opposite Party did not appear and it did not contest the case. From the pleadings and the evidence/documents filed by the Complainant, it is proved that the two wheeler of the Complainant was stolen. FIR was lodged by the Complainant but the same could not be recovered by the police. The Opposite Party rejected the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant did not take proper care while parking his two wheeler. As discussed above, the Opposite Party did not appear and did not contest the case.
6. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has proved his case. The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay the IDV of the two wheeler i.e. Rs. 58,891/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment and  Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.   
7. Order announced on 29.08.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)