IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 04.11.2015 Date of Hearing: 27.02.2025 Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO-542/2015 IN THE MATTER OF MR. ABHISHEK SHARMA S/O MR. PRABHU DAYAL SHARMA, R/O HOUSE NO.C-7, HARSH VIHAR, HARI NAGAR EXT.III NEW DELHI-110044 …APPELLANT (Through: Mr. Vipin Rathi, Advocate, Mob.7838332135&

Email:vipinrathi7659@gmail.com)

VERSUS

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 8, SANT NAGAR, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI

2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISION XV, NATIONAL INSURANCE BUILDING, 8 INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE, FIRST FLOOR, KOLKATA-1.

….RESPONDENTS (Through: Mr. S. K. Pandey, Advocate Mob.9811287225 &

Email:skpandey508@gmail.com)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Appellant in person. (Mob.9818814536).

Mr. S.K. Pandey, counsel for the respondent.

PER : HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he was having vehicle bearing No.DL-ILP-6640 (Eicher Canter) and the same was insured with the OPs vide policy No.15010031126300004845. On 07.07.2012, his vehicle was stolen by someone. A report was made by him with the police on 07.07.2012. The same was recovered in accidental condition from near petrol pump, Srinivaspuri Service Road which was almost completely damaged. He contacted the OPs and the OPs got the vehicle inspected by its surveyor. After the inspection of the vehicle at the spot by the surveyor, he got the vehicle repaired in workshop at Yunus Automobiles, shop behind factory No.7, Okhla Industrial Estate, Modi Mill, New Delhi-110020. He incurred Rs.1,46,781/- on the repair of his vehicle. He filed a claim with the OPs and supplied all relevant papers. On 04.02.13, he received a letter from the OP No.2 asking him to provide the copy of FIR duly verified by the deputed surveyor regarding theft of the vehicle. He sent the copy of the FIR duly verified by the deputed surveyor on the next day itself but till today nothing concrete has been done by the OPs. He sent a notice dated 04.03.2013 and a reminder dated 25.03.2013 to the OP through speed post but nothing has been done by the OP. Pleading deficiency in service he has prayed that OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the repair charges, harassment, mental agony, monetary loss and legal expenses.

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated

01.10.2015, whereby it held as follows:

“As per the averments made in the complaint the Complainant got his vehicle repaired from Yunus Automobiles Shop and he incurred Rs.1,46,871/- on the repair. However as stated hereinabove the bill said to have been issued by Yunus Automobiles Shop is for an amount of Rs.51,300/- only. Remaining bills have been issued by Vinu Auto Parts. Complainant has not made mention about these bills. Therefore, the complaint of the Complainant seems to be doubtful in nature. However we also notice that Complainant has also filed copy of one bill dated 09.07.12 shown to have been issued by Yunus Automobiles Shop (perhaps a supplementary bill). If the said amount is taken into consideration the amount would even exceed to Rs.2 lakh. Secondly, copy of the claim petition stated to have been filed by the Complainant with the OP for reimbursement of the claim has not been filed on the record. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant has failed to make out any case for deficiency of service on the part of OP. We dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present appeal on the following reasons:

I. Because the Hon’ble forum erred in not considering the fact that the respondent company is duly liable to pay the claim amount