DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 434/2013
Date of Institution 25/04/2013
Order reserved on 13/12/2017
Date of Order 15/12/2017
In matter of
Mr Rambir Singh, adult
S/o Sh Bhagwat Swaroop
R/o- F-12, Gazipur Village, Delhi 110092..…….……………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-The Manager
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110002
2-The Manager
PRJ Enterprises Ltd. (Autho. Dealer – Bajaj Auto.)
80, Patpargunj Industrial Area
Delhi 110092 …………………………………………………………………………….Opponents
Quorum ………………………………………….Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Smt Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari Member
Brief facts of the case - This complaint has been filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for alleged deficiency in services of OP1 for none settling of claim theft and recovery of the said two wheeler as ‘No Claim’.
Facts of the case
Complainant Rambir Singh, owner of red color Bajaj Discover motor cycle bearing registration no. DL7SBA 7665(Ex CW1/1), insured from OP1/Oriental Insurance Co. vide insurance tenure from 13/02/2010 to 12/02/2 011 policy no. 271700/31/2010/9614 (Ex CW1/2) had parked his motor cycle near Saibaba Mandir, Near Hasanpur village, Delhi on 24/07/2010 in the evening and was theft by some unknown person for which eFIR was done by the complainant at Madhu Vihar Police Station, Delhi vide FIR No. 300 (Ex CW1/3A, 3B,3C). It was stated that after some time, said motor cycle was recovered by the police and was handed over to the complainant (Ex CW1/5, 5A & 5B). Complainant took his motor cycle to the workshop of OP2/ PRJ Enterprisers for getting repaired. An estimate was given by OP2 (Ex CW1/8), so he intimated to OP1 for claiming damages. OP1 appointed surveyor who after inquiring and taking necessary papers for claim process, issued a letter for submitting some more necessary papers for completing inquiry and claim process, but complainant stated that all the papers had been given to the surveyor and due to the negligence of surveyor, OP1 did not release the claim amount even in 3 months despite inquiring personally at OP1 office, his genuine claim was closed as ‘No Claim’, thus sent a legal notice on 16/07/2010 for release of claim amount. When no reply was received by the complainant, filed this complaint and claimed a sum of Rs 38,750/- as repair charges and Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment with 18% interest and Rs 22000/- as litigation charges.
On receiving notices, OP1 did not file written statement despite of giving number of opportunities and putting cost, but did not submit the same till 29/01/2014, so not taken on record. Complainant filed his evidences on affidavit and re-affirmed on oath that OP 1 had not paid the cost so their written statement was not taken on record though OP had filed later on, so he did not file his rejoinder. He submitted evidence of purchase of motor cycle (Ex CW1/1) with his valid insurance policy copy (Ex CW1/2), driving licence and registration certificate (Ex CW1/2A, B & C) and estimate of repair of his motor cycle from OP2 (Ex CW1/8) as motor cycle was recovered and claim intimation to OP1 on dated 19/12/2012 (Ex CW1/9). He stated that all his evidence were correct and true and be accepted.
OP1 also filed evidences on affidavit through Mr Rajiv Chopra working as Deputy General Manager with OP1 and stated on oath that all the terms and conditions of OP1 were annexed as Ex R-1 (colly). It was stated that there was over 55 days delay in intimation of damages to OP which itself was violation to the condition of the policy where insured had to give intimation within 48 hours.
OP also submitted that the claim was never rejected, but closed as ‘NO CLAIM’ because complainant did not completed his requirements as per their intimation letter dated 19/11/2010 and 21/02/2011 (Anne. R2 &3). More so, complainant never intimated about the theft and subsequently recovery of vehicle/two wheeler by police, but intimated for reimbursement of repair bill from OP2/PRJ Enterprises. Hence, this complaint may be dismissed.
Even on the day to day proceeding, complainant did not put his appearance from 17/04/2014 despite of serving notices for his appearance, but did not appear even for argument. On the date of arguments, none of the parties or their counsels were present, so file was perused and order was reserved.
We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that complainant could not prove deficiency of OP by even single concrete evidence and also complainant did not peruse his case before the Forum and even on merits did not comply the terms and conditions of policy for claiming damages. That being so, this case deserves to be dismissed so, this complaint is dismissed without cost.
The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and the file be consigned to Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.
(Dr) P N Tiwari Member Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh President
