DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 934/2017
D.No._______________________ Date: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MOHD. SAMIM S/o MOHD. ATIFUL,
R/o H. No.263, GALI No-1,
SHISH MAHAL ROAD,
SHALIMAR BAGH-VILLAGE,
DELHI-110088. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. THUKRAL ELECTRIC BIKES PVT. LTD.,
THRIUGH THE MANAGER,
A-18, RAJAN BABU ROAD,
SWARN SINGH ROAD,
ADARSH NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110033.
2. UNIVERSAL SOMPO ORIENTAL INS. Co. LTD.,
THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER,
903/904, 9th FLOOR, GDITL TOWER,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034. … OPPOSITE PARTY (ies)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 17.11.2017 Date of decision:25.10.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that on 26.08.2016, the complainant purchased E-Rickshaw from
CC No.934/2017 Page 1 of 6
OP-1 and paid Rs.1,13,000/- to OP-1 for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Thereafter, OP-1 raised the bill on 29.08.2016 of Rs.1,13,000/- (i.e. Rs.98,267/- for E-Rickshaw with battery, its charger, Rs.4,913.35 as VAT, Rs.5,376/- as insurance charges, Rs.4,444/- as road tax, registration fee & other charges) and the said E-Rickshaw is insured with OP-2 bearing policy no.2314/56475823/00/000 for the period from 26.08.2016 to 25.08.2017 (mid-night) on the IDV of Rs.93,354/-. The complainant is having driving license for the said E-Rickshaw and on 05.10.2016 when the complainant was sitting in the said E-Rickshaw near Noor-A-Ellahi Masjid, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, Opp. Consumer Court, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi,3 boys came and asked the complainant to go near Rohini Jail Red Light. The complainant further alleged that the 3 boys took tea and also offered tea to the complainant from tea stall and after taking tea, the complainant was unconscious and next day i.e. 06.10.2016, the complainant found himself in Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and the E-Rickshaw was stolen.After the treatment, the complainant was discharged on 07.10.2016 from the hospital and the family members made complaint to police department for missing of the complainant’s E-Rickshaw and the complaint bearing DD No. 3A dated 06.10.2016. In this regard a FIR was also made and the police department gave final report also and due to this mis-happening/theft of the said vehicle, the complainant and family members are mentally
CC No.934/2017 Page 2 of 6
disturbed. After few days of discharge from hospital, the complainant/family members approached OP’s for theft claim of the said E-Rickshaw and the complainant approached OP’s several times for theft claim of the said E-Rickshaw but there is no proper response from OPs and also not releasing the theft claim of the said vehicle and lastly, OP-2 gave a repudiation letter dated 01.02.2017 to the complainant and all the promises by OPs for the prompt and honest services are demolished by their own act as the genuine claim of stolen vehicle is not released till filing the case which clearly shows deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to release the theft claim of the vehicle of the complainant i.e. Rs.93,354/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till its realization as well as compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing mental, physical pain, agony and harassment and delay and has also sought Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. Only OP-2 has been contesting the case and filed reply and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. In its reply OP-2 submitted that the vehicle was being plied on road without proper registration and without temporary registration certificate and was also been driven by a person with learner’s license, hence the claim was repudiated.
4. However, none for OP-1 appeared on 20.02.2018 & 08.05.2018
CC No.934/2017 Page 3 of 6
despite service on 29.01.2018 as per track report and as such OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.05.2018.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to reply of OP-2 and denied the submissions of the OP-2 and re-affirmed allegations in the complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of invoice TEBPL/HO/201617/1382 dated 29.08.2016 of Rs.1,13,000/- issued by OP-1, copy of insurance policy issued by OP-2, copy of Learner License of the complainant, copy of FIR dated 06.10.2016, copy of report issued by Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, copy of Final Form Report, copy of receipt issued by the investigating officer P.S. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and copy of repudiation letter dated 01.02.2017 issued by OP-2.
7. However, OP-2 failed to file any affidavit of any official of evidence despite giving various opportunities and imposition of cost and even none for OP-2 appeared on 29.10.2018 & 13.02.2019 and as such vide order dated 13.02.2019, right of OP-2 to file its evidence was closed.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent throughout and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the
CC No.934/2017 Page 4 of 6
complainant. Moreover, OP-2 has failed to prove its defence and it shows that the defence taken by OP-2 in its reply is a sham and vague defence and cannot be considered. Accordingly, the action of OP-2 in repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and OP-2 ought to have passed the claim of the complainant and failure on the part of OP-2 to pay to the complainant its genuine claim amounts to deficiency in service.Thus, OP-2 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct the OP-2 to:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.93,354/- the IDV of the vehicle
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CC No.934/2017 Page 5 of 6
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 25th day of October, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.934/2017Page 6 of 6
