DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 115/2017
D.No._______________________ Date: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SUNEEL KUMAR S/o SH. SHIVAPAL,
R/o B-156, MANGE RAM PARK,
DELHI-110086. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. E-RICKSHAW BAZAAR,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
KHASRA No.71/36, MAIN ROHTAK ROAD,
NEAR RAJDHANI PARK, METRO PILLAR No.497,
MUNDKA, DELHI-110041.
2. THUKRAL ELECTRIC BIKES PVT. LTD.,
THRIUGH ITS MANAGER,
A-18, RAJAN BABU ROAD,
SWARN SINGH ROAD,
ADARSH NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110033.
3. THE ORIENTAL INS. Co. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL HOUSE, A-25/27,
ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002. … OPPOSITE PARTY (ies)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 08.02.2017 Date of decision: 14.02.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under
CC No.115/2017 Page 1 of 8
Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that on 15.09.2016, the complainant purchased E-Rickshaw from OP-1 and paid Rs.1,16,000/- and the complainant purchased the said vehicle for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Thereafter, the complainant requested OP-1 several times to give insurance policy and R.C. of the said vehicle but at every visit/ request of the complainant, OP-1 gave an excuse and called the complainant next week to collect the insurance policy and R.C. of the said vehicle. The complainant further alleged that the vehicle was stolen on 15.10.2016 when the complainant was on the way and the two passengers came and asked to go to Lakhiram Park and one passenger was having sweet packet and the said passenger asked the complainant to take the sweet as it is Parsad of temple and the complainant ate the sweet given by the passenger and after an half hour, the complainant became unconscious and some person gave the message to the complainant’s wife on mobile phone about the unconscious of the complainant near road side. Thereafter, the wife of the complainant run at the point/site where the complainant was in an unconscious position and after reaching there, wife of the complainant took the complainant to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and the doctors treated the complainant and discharged the complainant on 17.10.2016 from the hospital. The complainant further alleged that after few
CC No.115/2017 Page 2 of 8
days of discharge from the hospital, the complainant and his wife approached OP-1 to collect the insurance policy and R.C. of the said vehicle for the requirement of stolen-claim document of the said vehicle and after this mishappening, OP-1 gave the New Bill of E-Rickshaw and insurance policy dated 08.12.2016. The complainant further alleged that intimation about the theft of the said vehicle was given by the complainant to Police department and to OP also and due to this mishappening/theft of the said vehicle, the complainant and his family members are mentally disturbed and the complainant approached several times to OP for theft claim of the said vehicle but there is no proper response from OP and also not releasing the theft claim of the said vehicle nor giving another new E-Rickshaw and also not refunding the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- paid by the complainant for the said E-Rickshaw. The complainant further alleged that all the promises by OP for the prompt and honest services are demolished by their own acts as the genuine claim of stolen vehicle is not released nor amount of Rs.1,16,000/- refunded to the complainant by OP which clearly shows deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to release the theft claim of the stolen vehicle of the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. for delay, to refund the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- paid by the complainant for the said vehicle or release New E-Rickshaw as well as compensation
CC No.115/2017 Page 3 of 8
of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing mental, physical pain, agony and harassment and delay and has also sought Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. Notices were issued to OPs through speed post for appearance on 19.04.2017 and Counsel for OP-1 & OP-2 appeared and filed vakalatnama and sought time to file written statement and case was adjourned to 04.07.2017 and then for 19.09.2017 and then for 05.12.2017 for filing of written statement/reply. As per track report OP-3 has received notice on 07.03.2017. But none has appeared on behalf of OP-3 on 19.04.2017 & 04.07.2017 and as such OP-3 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.07.2017.
4. OP-1 & OP-2 in their reply submitted that the complaint is false and frivolous and the case is not maintainable. OP-1 & OP-2 further submitted that the complainant voluntarily signed the contract that he will not use the vehicle for any commercial purposes till the time the vehicle is registered and the complainant will bear any penalty imposed on the said vehicle till the time the vehicle is not registered. The complainant has taken the delivery of the said vehicle without necessary documents at his own risk. OP-1 & OP-2 further submitted that the complainant obtained the insurance of the said vehicle by playing fraud on OP-1 and thus there is no liability of OP-1 & OP-2. OP-1 & OP-2 further submitted that after the vehicle is sold there is a minimum period required for obtaining necessary documents like registration certificate and insurance
CC No.115/2017 Page 4 of 8
certificate and this fact was told to the complainant at the time of vehicle was sold. OP-1 & OP-2 accordingly submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to written statement of OP-1 & OP-2 and denied the submissions of the OP-1 & OP-2 and re-affirmed allegations in the complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of Booking Slip no. 240 dated 09.09.2016 of Rs.10,000/- issued by OP-1 and the slip is also having endorsement of receiving an amount of Rs.8,000/- on 17.09.2016 and Rs.90,000/- on 18.09.2016, copy of discharge summary dated 15.10.2016 issued by Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, copy of FIR no. 1177 dated 24.10.2016, copy of invoice no. TEBPL/HO/201617/1776 dated 08.12.2016 of Rs.1,13,000/- issued by OP-2 and copy of insurance policy dated 08.12.2016 issued by OP-3.
7. However, OP-1 & OP-2 failed to file any affidavit of any official in evidence despite giving various opportunities and imposition of cost and even none for OP-1 & OP-2 appeared on 24.04.2019 and right to file evidence by OP-1 & OP-2 was closed as well as right to file written arguments was also closed vide order dated 22.08.2019.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant.
CC No.115/2017 Page 5 of 8
The case of the complainant has remained consistent throughout and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, OP-1 & OP-2 have failed to prove their defence and it shows that the defence taken by OP-1 & OP-2 in their reply is a sham and bogus defence and cannot be considered. Furthermore, as per booking slip issued by OP-1, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- to OP-1 i.e. Rs.10,000/- on 09.09.2016, Rs.8,000/- on 17.09.2016 & Rs.90,000/- on 18.09.2016, leaving a balance of Rs.8,000/-. This fact is supported from FIR which was registered by the police on the basis of the statement of the complainant wherein the complainant has clearly stated that he was going to handover the balance amount of Rs.8,000/- to E-Rickshaw Bazar i.e. OP-1 and the same was closed was returning. So, it cannot be presumed that the complainant would have taken the delivery of the vehicle on 08.12.2016 or has taken the delivery of the said vehicle forcefully. Moreover, OP-1 & OP-2 in their reply has not disputed the booking receipt and taking the said amount. In para no.-9 of their joint reply OP-1 & OP-2 have submitted that the complainant has forcefully taken the possession of the vehicle without completion of the necessary documents and OPs are at no fault regarding the theft of the said vehicle. This defence of OP-1 & OP-2 does not inspire of any confidence and it clearly shows that OPs have created invoice and insurance policy
CC No.115/2017 Page 6 of 8
both dated 08.12.2016 to escape their liability to pay the theft claim amount and this action of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and OPs ought to have passed the claim of the complainant and failure on the part of OP-2 to pay to the complainant its genuine claim amounts to deficiency in service. OP-3 i.e. the insurance company is also held liable on account of the fact that OP-3 has allowed OP-1 & OP-2 to use its blank policy forms having serial number as well as stamp of insurance company. Thus, OPs are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct OPs jointly or severally to:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- the price paid by the complainant to OP-1 & OP-2 and the complainant to return original booking receipt, invoice and to sign transfer papers.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OPs jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.
CC No.115/2017 Page 7 of 8
If OPs fail to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 14th day of February, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.115/2017 Page 8 of 8
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
