BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.169 of 2016 Date of Institution : 15.7.2016
Date of Decision : 20.12.2016.
Gurmail Singh son of Sh. Puran Singh, r/o #486, Parmarth Colony, Gali No.2, Begu Road, Sirsa-125055 through power of attorney, Surender Singh (son).
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Coverfox Insurance Booking Pvt. Ltd. 3rd Floor, A wing, Krislon House, Saki Vihar Road Saki Naka, Maharashtra- 400072.
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited Office No.208, 2nd Floor, Sewa Corporate Park, M.G. Road, Gurugram- 122001.
.…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….. ……MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for the opposite party No2.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant Gurmail Singh through his power of attorney Surender. The case of the complainant is that he is having a Motor cycle of 2014 Model HF- Deluxe bearing registration No.HR-24-S-9518 which is used by his son. The son of the complainant contacted with Coverfox.com for online general insurance and their website suggested for insurance through HDFC Ergo i.e. op no.2. Then son of the complainant through his e-mail sent the details of the complainant on 7.7.2016 and also made payment through online transaction from Sirsa against which op no.1 sent transaction confirmation receipt alongwith policy document of insurance of motor cycle through email. In the evening of 7.7.2016, his son was stopped by Traffic Policy, Sirsa in the city upon which his son stated them that he has complete documednts of the motor cycle but the police stated him that policy commences from 10.7.2016. The police also misbehaved with his son and challaned the motor cycle under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and impounded the motor cycle. In the night he saw the papers of insurance and found that on the insurance purchase statement, policy issue date was mentioned as 7.7.2016, policy start date was mentioned as 8.7.2016 and policy end date was mentioned as 7.7.2017 whereas as per HDFC ERGO, the policy issue date is 7.7.2016, policy start date is 10.7.2016 and policy end date is 9.7.2017. Both the ops have cheated them and they had to deposit fine of Rs.2300/- for the challan under M.V. Act. The op no.2 charged the amount for insurance on 7.7.2016 but issued policy from 10.7.2016. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and replied that complainant himself admitted in the complaint that his son is a notorious person and argued with the police on duty, therefore, the police has challaned him under Motor Vehicle Act. The answering op is nowhere related to the said incident. The complainant should have checked the documents. It is the gross negligence on the part of the complainant. This is a case of break-in case, wherein previous policy of the complainant expired on 8.4.2016. In such case, insurers, including the respondent offer new policy inception date on T+3 basis, where T is today’s date, when payment made for purchasing the policy. This is applicable for both offline and online channels. The policy starts date is 10.7.2016 and end date is 9.7.2017. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. Opposite party no.1 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1, policy discrimination regarding dates Ex.C2, insurance purchase statement Ex.C3, certificate of insurance cum policy schedule Ex.C4, copy of driving licence of Surender Singh Ex.C5 and advertisement of op no.1 Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.2 placed affidavit Ex.R1.
5. We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for ops and have gone through the case file carefully. Written argument filed on behalf of complainant also perused.
6. The complainant Gurmail Singh in his affidavit Ex.C1 has raised strong objection against opposite party no.2 for using the word “Notorious” against his son Surender and in our view also same is also not appropriate and op no.2 in this regard is condemned and advised to take care in future. However, in so far as allegations of the complainant regarding challaning of the motor cycle of the complainant by the police of Sirsa due to act and conduct of both the opposite parties is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties cannot be blamed for the challan of motor cycle under the different provisions i.e. under Sections 1, 8, 13, 16, 31, 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The police challaned the son of the complainant under Section 1 of M.V. Act for driving the motor cycle without driving licence, under Section 8 of M.V. Act for driving the motor cycle without registration certificate, u/s 13 of M.V. Act for W/o/ expired third party insurance, u/s 16 of M.V. Act for violating air pollution standards, u/s 31 of M.V. Act for disobeying police orders, obstructing (misbehavior)/ refusing information and under Section 53 of M.V. Act for driving the motor cycle without helmet. Even in the challan Ex.C6 it is mentioned that son of complainant refused to disclose his name and also refused to sign the challan. So the opposite parties cannot be blamed for violation of all the above said provisions of Motor Vehicle Act on the part of son of complainant rather from the record it seems that son of complainant was somewhat at fault. Moreover, in the insurance purchase statement provided by op no.1 Ex.C3 the policy start date is mentioned as 8.7.2016 and not 7.7.2016 on which date police challaned the son of complainant.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 20.12.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
