DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 403/2014
Date of Institution - 19/05/2015
Date of Order - 09/08/2016
In matter of
Mr Shamshad Khan, adult
s/o Sh Mukeen Ahmed
R/o- L-98, Seelampur -III
Welcome, Delhi- 110053 ……………………………………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-The Manager
United India Insurance Co.,
XI/49, FF, Main Road,
Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
2-M/s Prime Automation
C-42, Main Road, opp.- Swaran Cinema
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051………………….…………………….Respondents
Complainant’s Advocate - Sh S K Pandey
Opponent’s Advocate - Ex Parte
Corum- Shri Sukhdev SingH-President
Dr P N Tiwari - Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member :
Brief Facts of the case
Complaint purchased a Yamaha motor cycle vide model no.- Y2F-R-15 from OP2 for a sum of Rs 1,23,155/- on 30/12/2012. The said two vehicle was registered under no.- DL-13S-N- 1785.
The said motor cycle was insured from 20/01/2013 to 20/01/2013 to 20/01/2014. On 12/09/2013, said vehicle was hit by some unknown vehicle and got damaged. Complainant took his motor cycle to OP2 for repair. OP 2 advised complainant to report the incidence to local police.
Complainant lodged complaint with Seelampur police station vide DD no.- 62B dated 12/09/2013. As per complainant, vehicle was taken to OP2 and a job card was made vide no 34469.
Complainant pleaded that OP 2 demanded money for the repair of his motor cycle, but he did not pay as vehicle was insured. When complainant did not get his motor cycle repaired, he sent a legal notice to OP 2 on 22/12/2013 and claimed compensation of a sum of Rs one lakh with 18% interest. When he did not get any reply, he filed this complaint along with evidences.
After scrutinizing complaint and evidence, notices were served. OP1 notice could not be served as the address given by complainant was incorrect. OP2 was served. After getting correct address, fresh notice was sent and again no one put up their appearance nor submitted any written statement and evidence.
Despite of giving ample opportunity to OPs, when none put up their appearance, case was preceded Ex-Parte. Complainant filed his evidence on affidavit. Case was perused with evidences.
It was seen that the said motor cycle was hit by some unknown vehicle; no intimation was given to OP1/United India Insurance Co. There was no surveyor’s report or detail job card showing extent of damages and estimated cost to be paid by OP1. It is a clear fact that insured /owner of a vehicle has to give intimation to the insurer/OP1within 48 hours. Here, no intimation was given. Job card available on record was blank and does not show any details about damage of said vehicle.
The conclusion of this case is, as this case being Ex-Parte, complainant could not prove deficiency of OPs and extent of damages on concrete evidence. He has claimed compensation only but did not complete requirement for claim from OP1. So this complaint is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, complaint is dismissed without any order to cost. The order copy be sent to the parties as per act and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member (Dr) P N Tiwari -Member
Mr Sukhdev Singh - President
