Delhi

North East

CC/66/2023

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Mar 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.66/23                                   

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Vinod Kumar R/o U 19B/1 St. No. 1, Phase IV, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94	Complainant
	Versus
	Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Development House, 24 Park Street, Kolkata 700016	Opposite Party

 

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

14.03.23 25.01.24 26.03.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant got insured his car bearing no. DL 5CN6472 by Opposite Party on 31.01.21 vide policy no. P0021000100/4101/747645. The car of Complainant got damaged on 24.01.22 and Complainant registers its repair through claim no. C1224101116216 and Opposite Party denied to process it stating that there is difference in NCB. It is stated that NCB was allotted to him according to policy market and it was the duty of Opposite Party company to recover it in the beginning but Opposite Party company made an excuse of NCB at the time of repairment of claim. The Complainant request to pay NCB online thereafter Opposite Party provided link through  email by offering account no. 912020050394870, IFSC code UTIB0000005 but did not reveal the amount and Complainant paid Rs. 2,500/- for receiving of NCB. The Opposite Party company did not revert the excess amount and provided a new claim no. C1224101116617. The Complainant requested Opposite Party company through email and helplines many times but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for the reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 25,821/- with interest.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.05.23.

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 and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he got his car insured with Opposite Party and the said insurance policy was valid up to 31.01.22. The Complainant of the Complainant was damaged on 24.01.22 and Complainant register his claim with Opposite Party and Opposite Party rejected his claim on the ground that difference in No Claim Bonus taken by the Complainant. It is submitted by the Complainant that he had paid Rs. 2,500/- to the Opposite Party on account of excess No Claim Bonus taken by the Complainant. In spite of that Opposite Party failed to reimburse repair charges to the Complainant. S
5. As per letter dated 02.02.22 written to the Complainant by Opposite Party copy of which is enclosed by the Complainant along with his complaint, Opposite Party asked him to provide following documents:
   1. Actual spot photos, CCTC Footage and witness detail if any.
   2. At the time of survey your vehicle in dismantled condition, please clarify.
   3. Delay reason ( 7 Days)
   4. Driver statement, his injury detail and Google timeline location at the time of accident.
   5. Previous policy copy.

 

6. In The present complaint, Complainant failed to provide any documentary evidence regarding supplying the above information to the Opposite Parties and he also did not lead any evidence in this regard before this Commission.
7. In view of the above discussion and in our considered opinion there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
8. Order announced on 26.03.24.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)