The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant had motor accident claim policy being no. 1507552312007358 against his Royal Enfield motor cycle registered as WB72L 7079 being engine no. USSSFOFBO94238 and accident was taken place on 25.02.2016. The complainant registered the claim of accident on 21.04.2016 before OP No.1 Relience General Insurance Company Ltd., Gitanjali complex 2nd mile, 2nd Floor, Sevoke Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling for a sum of Rs. 61,961/- and as per terms and conditions of the policy the Ops had to compensate the 90% of the damaged amount to the insured. The complainant made several requests and demands with bills and vouchers of OP No.4, M/S
Contd….P/2
-2-
Siliguri Distributors to OP No.1 but failed and thereafter on 01.06.2016 the complainant made demand again to entertain the application of damages compensation. The OP No.1 did not accept the claim application and thus no process was done. The cause of action of this case arose as per complaint on 21.04.2016 and thereafter on 01.06.2016 when for the last time intimation was given before the OPs. The OPs intentionally harassed and denied to disburse the claim of the complaint which is deficiency in service and for that reason this case is filed by the petitioner/complainant with claim of Rs. 61,961/- to be paid to him by OP Nos. 1 to 3. The complaint further demands Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and another Rs. 25,000/- from the OP No.4 as well as cost of the proceedings. Complainant during filing of this case submitted one Xerox copy of Insurance certificate and that of bill and vouchers as Annexure-I and II. In this case the Opposite Parties (OPs) submitted written version stating therein that the OPs took up the matter and the net loss value was assessed by the Ops on the basis of the terms and conditions at the tune of Rs. 38,000/- only against the claimed/estimated value of Rs. 61,961/- as stated by the complainant in the petition and accordingly on the basis of the aforesaid assessment report the Ops finally settled the instant claim at the tune of Rs. 38,000/- only as full and final settlement and complainant willfully and voluntarily accepted the said amount and has acknowledged the claim discharge/satisfaction voucher without any protest, coercion, undue influence, fraud or representation by the Ops or in any manner whatsoever under any circumstances. Complainant has filed his evidence in writing along with an affidavit. Complainant-side has also filed argument in writing and on the other hand the OPs have also filed written notes of argument from their side. It is to be mentioned here that by filing a petition OPs made a prayer on 16.05.2017 for treating their written version as their evidence in this case and that has been accepted by this Forum. Heard, arguments from both sides and the Ld. advocates as per written argument advanced there oral arguments. The Ld. advocate for the OPs have referred during argument some judgments passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which are reported in 1. 2013 (1) CPR 367 (NC), 2. 2013 (3) CPR 128 (NC), 3. 2013(3) CPR 140 (NC), 4. 2013 (3) CPR 177(NC), 5. 2014(1) CPR 2 (NC), 6. 2015 (1) CPR 135 (NC), 7. 2015(3) CPR 178 (NC), .8. 2016 (1) CPR 297 (NC) & 9. 2016 (3) CPR 103 (NC). The OPs have also produced some documents which include copy of details of payment through NEFT to the complainant’s SBI Account No. 32934191177, copy of assessment details of the settled amount of Rs. 38,000/- only paid to the complainant/ insured and copy of discharge voucher duly signed by the complainant.
Upon the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed for determination of this case:-
Contd….P/3
-3-
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Has there been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed from the part of the OPs to the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
All the three issues are taken up together for consideration as those are interlinked.
This is the case of complainant that due to motor accident in respect of his Royal Enfield motor cycle being No. WB 72L 7079 which accident took place on 25.02.2016 he registered a claim before OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.61,961/- on 21.04.2016 but thereafter on 01.06.2016 ultimately the complainant made demand to entertain his application of damages to the OP No.1 but as no response came so this case. But on scrutiny of the case record particularly from the documents as filed by the side of the OPs it is found that the complainant, Rajkishor Nangalia, has made acknowledgement of receiving Rs. 38,000/- on claim discharge voucher by putting his signature thereon as full and final settlement of the claim of insurance as against the accident. From another documents it is found that through NEFT-4440U16123843190 the amount of Rs. 38,000/- made in the payee name, Rajkishor Nangalia(complainant) in his SBI A/C No. 32934191177 as against the claim no. 2016209426 and that was the payment to the complainant. In this context, the above referred judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi are very much pertinent as the principles of law derived therefrom is completely applicable to this case also where Hon’ble National Commission deciding these claim cases has been pleased to hold almost in all the judgments that voluntarily signing of discharge voucher extinguishes any further claim and it has been emphatically held in all those cases that insured cannot reopen his claim for further relief after full and final settlement of insurance claim and moreover in the enshrined judgments it has been categorically stated that complainant having voluntarily entered into full and final settlement is now estopped from agitating claim by filing complaint. Here in this case the complainant while received the amount of Rs. 38,000/- by putting his signature on the discharge voucher thereafter it appears that for further claim to Rs. 61,961/- as claimed initially in this case, that should not be maintainable while our Hon’ble National Commission has in all the cases referred above decided the matter that once discharge voucher is given without any fraud or coercion claimant cannot challenge quantum of amount given to him. We have in this context thoroughly gone through the above referred judgments of
Contd….P/4
-4-
the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and accordingly on perusal of the same it can safely be said under the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the documents on record that this case of the complainant is not maintainable though the complainant is a consumer under the definition of the term as per C.P. Act. 1986. No deficiency in service is there and no unfair trade practice has been done by the OPs against the complainant and thus all the three issues are disposed of and it is held that the complainant should not get any relief as prayed in the petition of complaint, as the case of the complainant fails. Proper fees paid. Hence, it is,
ORDERED,
that the instant consumer complaint case being no. C.C. 66-S-2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost. Let a copy of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost at once.
