Delhi

North East

CC/393/2022

Gorish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Star Motors - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 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. 393/22

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Gorish Kumar, S/o Lt. Sh. RoshanLal Sharma, R/o A 463, St. No. 13, Part 3, Sonia Vihar, Sabhapur, North East, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Star Motors, Through its Proprietor/Principal Officer Having its workshop at: A 76, Ground Floor, Ist Pusta, Usmanpur, Delhi-110053	Opposite Party

 

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

17.10.22 29.02.24 30.04.24

 

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 motor cycle bearing no.DL05SBQ1402 from 10.07.22 to 09.07.22 against policy No. DO69512963/08072022 where policy was issued on 08.07.22 vide invoice no. IA068635003 with the Opposite Party No.2 against which a due premium to the tune of Rs.  1,655/- was paid at the time of purchasing the said insurance policy. On 13.07.22 Complainant met with an accident and thereafter submitted his claim on 14.07.22 against claim no. 202200250697.It is stated that Mr. Mohit Monga, M No. 9028382316 was appointed as surveyor for assessing damages occurred in motor cycle by Opposite Party No.2 and the surveyor submitted its report and asked Complainant to hand over its bike at authorized service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and as per instructions Complainant did the same. Copy of acknowledgment in this regard issued by Opposite Party No.1 dated 01.08.22 is filed on record. Thereafter considering the submitted claim Complainant received sum of Rs. 5,540/- on 30.08.22. It is stated that from 01.08.22 till date his motor cycle was under repair with Opposite Party No.1. The defect occurred in the accident in the said motor cycle has not been cured despite repeated requests and personal visits of Complainant. It is stated that Complainant noticed his vehicle was discharging excess carbon from its silencer. The same was required to be cured by the Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Party No.1 neither repaired the same nor responded properly despite repeated requests of the Complainant. On the contrary on 08.09.22 the officials of the Opposite Party No.1 extended threats to Complainant for retention charges, if he was not able to pick his motorbike forthwith. The Complainant has no hesitation in picking up his bike but he same was not in roadworthy condition. The Complainant had also sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 09.09.22 which was served through speed post as well as email and after receiving notice official of Opposite Party No.1 contacted Complainant for picking his motor cycle. The official of Opposite Party No.1 further extended threat to Complainant over telephone that the retention charges have been calculated to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-.  On 22.09.22 Complainant again visited workshop of Opposite Party No.1 wherein on starting ofmotor bike, the discharge of excess carbon from its silencer was not cured while a detailed bill of his mechanism has been raised. The Complainant has tried his level best from pillar to post but of no use. The Complainant has assessed his losses of Rs. 43,550/- in total. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 43,550/- with pendent lite and future interest @ 12 % p.a. He also prayed for litigation expenses. 
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 12.04.23. Vide order dated 15.05.23 the Opposite Party No.2 was deleted and Complainant filed amended memo of parties.

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 Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he got insured his motor cycle bearing no.DL05SBQ1402 from 10.07.22 to 09.07.22 against policy No. DO69512963/08072022 from Opposite Party No.2. The policy was issued on 08.07.22 vide invoice no. IA068635003 and the Complainant was paid Rs.  1,655/- as premium at the time of purchasing the said insurance policy. On 13.07.22 Complainant met with an accident and thereafter submitted his claim on                                                                                                                                                                                                                   14.07.22 against claim no. 202200250697. It is also the case of the Complainant that Mr. Mohit Monga was appointed as surveyor for assessing damages occurred in motor cycle by Opposite Party No.2 which is deleted later on and the surveyor submitted its report and asked Complainant to hand over its bike at authorized service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and as per instructions Complainant did the same. Copy of acknowledgment in this regard issued by Opposite Party No.1 dated 01.08.22 is filed on record. Thereafter considering the submitted claim Complainant received sum of Rs. 5,540/- on 30.08.22. It is stated that from 01.08.22 till date his motor cycle was under repair with Opposite Party No.1. The defect occurred in the accident in the said motor cycle has not been cured despite repeated requests and personal visits of Complainant.
5. As per record of the case, Complainant did not raise any objection to the claim passed by the insurance company and deleted the insurance company from the array of parties. After the finalization of the claim, Complainant failed to lead any evidence regarding the bill raised by the Opposite Party for further repair of the said vehicle. The Complainant also failed to lead any evidence regarding deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.  
6.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata and Another v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Others (2020) 9SCC 424) held that the initial onus or burden to justify, verify and authenticate the fact that there is a deficiency of service committed by a party is on the Complainant.
7.  In view of the above and in our considered opinion, the Complainant is failed to prove any deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.  
8. Order announced on 30.04.24.

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)