Delhi

New Delhi

CC/338/2015

Narender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

11 May 2022

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

   Case No. 338/2015                                              

In the matter of:

NARENDER SINGH

S/O S H. SANTOKH SINGH,

VB-178, 3^RD  FLOOR, GALI NO. 7-A,

VIRENDER NAGAR, DELHI-110058                                 …..COMPLAINANT

                                                              VERSUS

1.           UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.

    3-7/5 (503 RATINGS)

    8^TH FLOOR, KANCHANJANGA BUILDING,

   18, BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

  CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001

 

2.          KARVAT COVER- MORE ASSIST PVT. LTD.

    UGF-9A& V, ARUNANCHAL BUILDING

    BARAKHAMBA ROAD

    NEW DELHI-110001                                          .....OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

            Shri. Bariq Ahmad, Member

            Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                                    Dated of Institution :25.05.2015

                                                                                     Date of Order        : 11.05.2022

O R D E R

BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

Hearing through Video Conferencing.

1. The present complaint has been filed against the opposite party (in short OP) under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that complainant had visited Bangkok (Thailand) in the month of November 2014, he has gone to Bangkok by Thai Airways Flite No. TG324 on 11.11.2014 and returned to Delhi by flight No. TAG323 on 15.11.2014. The complainant purchased airline ticket of Op 1 and the complainant had taken an insurance cover for foreign travel vide policy no. 02160046143990098151 for US $ 1000/- from OP/ Insurance company through its agent i.e.  KARVAT COVER- MORE ASSIST PVT. LTD./OP No.2.
2. It is alleged that on arrival at Delhi, he did not receive check-in baggage with tag nos. TG477223 and TG477221. A complaint was lodged with Thai Airways office at IGI Airport , New Delhi. The goods worth Rs. 1,49,925/- was insured with OP. Thai airways has compensated to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 16,800/-. It is further alleged that the complainant has also filed insurance claim for US $ 1000/- in the month of November 2014 through claim form for overseas policy. The complainant since then has been regularly in touch with the OP, OP assured the complainant that the claim will be passed, as OP did not respond positively the complainant has issued legal notice dated 18.4.2015 through his Advocate S.P. Singh Mann by currier but the OP till date neither reply nor passed the claim. It is alleged that the complainant had visited the office of the OP several times to pass the claim but not satisfactory reply. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, Hence, this complaint. The complainant prayed to pay the insurance claim amount US $ 1000/- with interest as covered in the insurance policy due to loss of baggage and also prayed for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical pain, agony, harassment and litigation cost.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP’s/ Insurance co. Counsel for OP appeared on 21.3.2016, filed Memo of appearance, copy of complaint provide to the OP, however OP has not preferred to file WS. Last opportunity is provided to file WS subject to cost of Rs 1000/-, but OP has neither filed WS nor paid cost as imposed and therefore, defense of the OP struck off on 26.5.2016.

 

4.  The complainant filed his ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint. The complainant has relied on copy of Insurance Policy/ cover note, passenger property claim form, a copy of ticket (Reservation and packages) dated 10.11.2014, copy of claim form with OP and a copy of legal notice.

 

5. We have heard the arguments for the counsel for the parties from the un-rebutted testimony of the complainant and documents place on record. Bare perusal of the complaint and its Annexures shows that complainant booked the Thai Airways Flight On 10.11.2014 and boarded on 11.11.2014 from IGI Airport to Bangkok (Thai) and returned from Thai airways on 15.11.2014 from Bangkok to Delhi at IGI airport on conformed reserved economy Ticket No. TG/ETKT2175854715891 by airbus A- 330. On perusal of the insurance cover, OP has insured loss of bagged (checked -in) for US $ 1000/-. It is not proved that the complainant has also filed claim for overseas policy with OP.  The complainant has also not mentioned in his pleadings any claim number with OP. The complainant has also failed to prove his contention that the bagged having goods worth Rs. 149925/-.

 

6. The counsel for OP appeared at the stage of final arguments, during the course of argument, the counsel for OP submits that the complainant had not tendered any proof of submission of claim form with received acknowledgment by OP . He further averred that there was no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant.  The claim passed by the Thai airway of Rs.16,800/- is not disputed by the OP.  He Further contended that the complainant has failed to file any proof of number of bags received by flight itinerary/boarding pass for lodging claim towards loss of baggage as contended by him.

 

7. The Ld. counsel for OP also refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal no. 5759 of 2009 titled SGS INDIA LTD. V/S DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL, decided on 06.10.2021 In this context, wherein it is upheld that “ the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.” The Division Bench in above cited case relied on its judgment reported in Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 66 wherein it held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.

 

8. We further perused the Annexures i.e. passenger’s property claim filed before Thai airways, claim form for overseas policy before OP and Legal notice issued to OP, filed by the complainant in support of his claim, the above said documents placed on record shows that the complaint failed to file any single documents in support of acknowledgments/receipts issued by OP. It is further revealed that the complainant has not filed any proof of the check-in luggage’s.

 

9. In view of above, we find that the contentions raised by the complainant in the complaint have not been substantiated/corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence and the onus being on the complainant to prove his case, the complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices against the opposite parties and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order accordingly. Office is directed to send one true copy of this order to the parties/speed post in accordance with the rules. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in). Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this   11^th   Day of May, 2022.

 

 

 

 

(POONAM CHADHARY)

President

 

 

        (BARIQ AHMAD)                                          (ADARSH NAIN)  

         Member                                                                Member