Delhi

East Delhi

CC/91/2014

SUNIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRIME AUTOMATION - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 91/14

 

Shri Sunil Kumar

S/o Late Shri Om Prakash

R/o 135-136, JJ Colony

Old Seema Puri, Delhi – 110 095                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Prime Automation

(Himgiri Yamaha)

C-42, Main Road, Opp. Swarn Cinema

Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 051

 

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

DRO-II, 10^th Floor, Scope Mina-I

Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

Through its Managr                                                                       ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 05.02.2014

Judgment Reserved for : 06.10.2016

Judgment Passed on : 26.10.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Sunil Kumar has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against M/s. Prime Automation (OP-1) and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) for direction to pay the claim amount of the damaged vehicle alongwith interest @ 24% p.a., replace the damaged parts of the vehicle,               Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a bike NO. DL-3SBY-0075 made Yamaha/SZR, having its engine No. 54B3015358 and chasis No. ME154B034B2015681  from M/s. Prime Automation (OP-1) on 28.04.2011 vide invoice No. 112, which was insured by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) vide insurance policy No. 32030331120100000646.  The vehicle met with an accident on 02.03.2013.  The complainant informed on customer care and was advised to contact service centre of OP-1.  On assurance, he handed over the vehicle to OP-1.  When the complainant contacted official of OP-1 for claim amount, the complainant was assured to have estimate of the vehicle, but this was not so done.

            He approached OP-2 who did not accept the claim of the vehicle saying the reason of delay of 12 days.  Thus, the complainant served a legal notice and have filed the present complaint claiming amount of damages alongwith interest @ 24% p.a.; replacement of damaged parts of the vehicle; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.        In the WS filed on behalf of OP-2, they have taken various pleas such as delay of 12 days.  Other facts have also been denied. 

OP-1 was served, but did not file the WS.  Though, no order of ex-parte was passed, but the fact that no WS was filed nor OP-1 appeared, he deemed to have been proceeded ex-parte. 

4.        In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself, who has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited RC bill and insurance of the vehicle (Ex. CW-1/A), (Ex. CW-1/B) and (Ex. CW-1/C); copy of letter of dated 26.06.2013 (Ex. CW-1/D); legal notice and its postal receipts (Ex. CW-1/E), (Ex. CW-1/F), (Ex. CW-1/G) and (Ex. CW-1/H). 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) have examined Shri Shiv Dayal, Senior Divisional Manager, who has deposed on affidavit.  He has also got exhibited documents such as letters written to the complainant for submitting the bill.  The letters are of dated 26.06.2013 and 15.07.2013 which are exhibited as Ex. OP-1/1 and Ex. OP-1/2; survey report has been exhibited as Ex. OP-1/3.

5.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-2 that there has been delay of 12 days in informing to the insurance company.  Further, the complainant has not submitted the claim though they have appointed their surveyor. 

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the delay occurred due to non-supplying of the estimate by M/s. Prime Automation (OP-1).  Further, insurance company (OP-2) did not accept the claim on its own. 

If the evidence on record is perused, it is noticed that the New India Insurance Company (OP-2) have sent letters to the complainant, which are of dated 26.06.2013 and 15.07.2013 (Ex. OP-1/1 and Ex. OP-1/2).  Further, they have appointed the surveyor, who has given its report which is exhibited as Ex. OP-1/3 and have assessed the same to the tune of Rs. 6,375/-.  Thus, from the evidence of the complainant as well as the evidence of OP-2, it is noticed that there has been a delay of 12 days in informing the insurance company.  Not only that there has been a delay of 12 days, but the evidence on record shows that the complainant have not filed the claim with the insurance company.   Since the complainant have not filed the claim with the insurance company, the question of rejection of his claim does not arise.  That being so his complaint is devoid of any merit, which deserves dismissal.  Hence, the same is dismissed. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President