| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 243 of 5.7.2019 Decided on: 24.9.2021 Lakhwinder Gir S/o Balram Gir R/o village Shekhupur, Tehsil & District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited having its office, 1st Floor, SCO 11 Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Authorized signatory/Manager.
- HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited having its office, registered & Corporative Office, 1st Floor, HDFC House, 165/166 Backbay Reclamation, H.T. Paresh Marg, Mumbai through its Authorized Signatory/Manager. …………Opposite Parties
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar,Member ARGUED BY Sh.Lachhman Gir, counsel for complainant. Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for the OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one insurance policy No.2315202660187700000 dated 11.2.2019 for the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-13-AA-9781 from the branch of OP No.1 valid for the period 11.2.2019 to 10.2.2020and he also submitted old policy including all documents i.e. driving licence, pan card and proposal form. It is averred that he paid the total premium of Rs.57170/- for the said policy.
- It is averred that on receipt of the policy, he came to know that OP No.1 has wrongly mentioned his name as Lakhwihder Gir instead of Lakhwinder Gir and also wrongly mentioned the village name as Shekurpur instead of Shekupur. The complainant immediately approached the OPs in this regard who assured that the correction would be made shortly. The OPs gave policy but again the name of village was mentioned wrongly. It is further averred that the complainant time and again requested the OPs to give a correct policy and it took two months in giving correct policy. It is further averred that due to wrong name the complainant could not ply the vehicle on road and suffered financial loss. He also got sent legal notice dated 24.4.2019 to pay compensation but to no effect. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to Rs.1,00,000/- as truck installment loss and driving loss and other expenses, to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/-as litigation expenses alongwith interest @18% per annum.
- Upon notice OPs appeared and filed written reply having raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint pertains to Goods Carrying Comprehensive policy. It is submitted that after one month of issuance of policy the complainant approached the OP in March,2019 for correction of the spelling of his name and the name of his village and also for the correction of gross vehicle weight of the insured vehicle which were made through an endorsement and the same were communicated to the complainant. Again in the month of April,2019 he approached for the correction in the spelling of the name of his village and the OP again did so. There is thus no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
- On merits also the OPs have reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections which are not required to be repeated for the sake of brevity. The OPs after denying all other averments have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 toC7 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal Assistant legal alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to OP7 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased one insurance policy from the OPs but in the policy the complainant name and his village name were wrongly mentioned. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant requested the OPs so many times to correct the same but they took long time. So he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4lac.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has fairly admitted that there was some mistake in the policy but the same was rectified and as such the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.
- To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint,Ex.C1 is document of OPs, Ex.C2 is insurance policy, Ex.C3 is also insurance policy,Ex.C4 is insurance policy,Ex.C5 is pan card,Ex.C6 is legal notice.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OPA of Shweta Pokhriyal, Assistant Manager-Legal and she has proved the documents Exs.OP1 to OP7.
- The only dispute in this case is that the policy which was issued to the complainant by the OPs there was some mistake in the alphabet in the name of the complainant and also the village name. There was also some mistake in the gross weight of the vehicle. Admittedly the mistake was rectified and the new policy was issued. So the mistake was duly rectified by the OPs and there is no evidence lead by the complainant that he has suffered any loss due to wrong mentioning of his name and the name of the village.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:24.9.2021 Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
