Delhi

North East

CC/294/2022

PRAVEEN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s ECOEDGE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

15 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.294/22

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, R/o H.No. B 301, St. No. 13, Bhajanpura, North East Delhi, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Ecoedge Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Through its Chairman/Director/Authorized person Having Registeres Office at:- Ground Floor, Kh. No. 1242 & 1282, Main Mubarakpur Road, Prem Nagar Phase 2, KirariSuleman Nagar, Delhi-110086	Opposite Party

 

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

20.07.22 24.01.24 15.03.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, 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  purchased a new two wheeler scooter having registration no. DL4GD0183, Chassis no. MEPHEHPSB029L1259 from Opposite Party vide invoice no. HE/20-21/0149 dated 23.03.21. On the instruction of Opposite Party, Complainant got insured his vehicle through ICICI Lombard, vide policy no. 3005/218302296/00/000 issued on 24.03.21 having tenure of own damage for one year i.e. from 24.03.21 to midnight of 23.03.22 and third party for five years i.e. 24.03.21 to midnight of 23.03.26. The Complainant paid total premium of Rs. 4,077/-. The Opposite Party offered Complainant if he wants to extend the validity of the period of the first party insurance by the two years in addition to the above mentioned one year then he has to pay Rs. 2,915/- in addition to the amount paid by the Complainant as premium of the insurance policy. The Opposite Party assured Complainant that the vehicle will get insured against the own damage for the next three years from 24.03.21 as he positively paid the consideration against the promise made by Opposite Party. On 05.05.22 the vehicle in question got stolen from Babarpur 100 foota road near little flower school between 13.30 and 13.40 and the Complainant immediately informed the concerned police station about the theft of the vehicle and lodged an FIR dated 05.05.22.On. 05.05.22 Complainant communicated Mr. NishantBansal one of  the directors of said enterprise and informed him regarding the theft and for asking process of getting the claim then Complainant came to know  that the said vehicle is no more falling under the insurance claim against the first party as the same expired on midnight of 23.03.22. It is stated that validity of own damage insurance was not extended by Opposite Party and failed on its part. The Opposite Party had mislead the Complainant by giving false assurance that the Insurance will be extend for two years by paying Rs. 2,915/-.The Opposite Party had also given its email ID instead of Complainant at the time of issuing certificate of insurance as malafide intention that Complainant will not get information as own damage policy is not extended by 2 years as per promise of Opposite Party. The Complainant sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 18.05.22 and the same was not delivered to Opposite Party due to insufficient address. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 63,000/- and Rs. 2,915/- for the amount paid by Complainant for extending the own damage insurance policy. He has also prayed for Rs. 10,000/- towards mental harassment.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.23.

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.We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant.The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Party did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. There is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party as Complainant could not get his insurance claim from the insurance company due to insurance policy was not get extended by the Opposite Party from the insurance company in spite of taking premium amount from the Complainant. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 63,000/- to the Complainant with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery.  The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of litigation expenses and mental harassment along with interest@ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 15.03.24.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

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