Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/527/2019

Pardeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Chawla Adv.

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	527/2019
Date of Institution	:	10.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	01.09.2023

 

                     

            

 

Pardeep Kumar s/o Sh.Narayan r/o Village Pai, Tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory/Claims Manager.

 

2.  Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 (Maharashtra) through its CEO /MD/Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
PRESENT:-
	Mr.Varun Chawla, Counsel for complainant Mr.Nikhil Sabharwal, Counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that the car bearing registration No.HR-26-BG-8540 insured with the Ops vide insurance policy (Annexure C-1) for the period from 17.10.2018 to 16.10.2019 for sum assured of Rs.7,73,913/-. On 09.11.2018 when the complainant was returning home from Chandigarh and when he reached near Village Israna after crossing, he notice that smoke was coming from the Engine and he immediately informed the Fire Department who doused the fire and the DDR in this regard was also registered.  The survey was conducted by the surveyor on 10.11.2018 and forensic team of the Ops took the samples of the wirings of the vehicle for investigation purposes. The surveyor informed the complainant that the vehicle was completely damaged and falls in total loss category and the claim will be processed shortly. However, the vehicle was not removed by the Ops from the spot for 10-12 days  and subsequently vide letter dated 24.11.2018(Annexure C-44), the complainant was asked to produce the technical report from the manufacture and the vehicle was towed by the complainant to M/s Aryaveer Motors Pvt. Ltd. by incurring a sum of Rs.7000/- approx.  The complainant submitted the technical report (Annexure C-6) in respect of the vehicle to the OPs on 04.01.2019. Later on, it was alleged that the officials of the Ops proposed a bargain to the tune of Rs.6.00 lacs against the IDV of the vehicle which was resisted by the complainant.  To the great shock of the complainant, the complainant was issued letter dated 24.01.2019 wherein the OPs sought irrelevant information after a lapse of 2 ½ months and forced him to accept the lesser amount than the IDV. Finally, the complainant approached the IRDA vide letter dated 19.02.2019. It has been averred that the complainant was harassed by writing letters by the OPs and  forced to accept the lesser amount than the IDV.  The complainant gave consent to accept Rs.5.00 lakhs under protest. He also wrote an e-mail and registered letter to this effect to the Ops on 27.03.2019 and requested them to release the remaining amount. It has been averred that the OPs with an ulterior motive have illegally withheld the valid and legal claim of the complainant. Finally, the complainant got served the OPs with the registered AD notice to release the remaining amount of Rs.2,15,913/- but all in vain. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to release the remaining claim with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     In their written statement, the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case have stated that the complainant has concealed the factum of execution of several documents which record the full and final settlement between the parties as well as the satisfaction of the claim in the form of payment of Rs.5 lacs.  Vide consent letter & affidavit both dated 14.03.2019 and claim discharge-cum-satisfaction voucher (Annexures R-1 to R-3), the complainant undertakes never to raise any issue or enter into any litigation regarding any matter covered by the aforesaid settlement. It has been pleaded that in the forensic investigation report, there are categorical findings to the effect that the evidence available with the forensic team, suggests a high probability that there was an intentional setting of the fire to the insured vehicle and the fire in question was not the result of short circuit of the wirings from any part of the vehicle. It has further been stated that instead of furnishing a formal technical report from the manufacturer as requested vide letter dated 14.11.2018, the complainant sent an e-mail dated 04.01.2019 purporting to be an opinion of some person regarding the fire incident and the same does not count as a technical report from manufacturer and as such he has failed to comply with the request of the OPs.  Moreover, the complainant has refused to cooperate with the OPs with regard to the supply of relevant documentation regarding the insured vehicle despite writing numerous letters. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.
5.     The OPs took the preliminary objection that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has concealed the factum of execution of several documents which record the full and final settlement of Rs.5 lakhs received by him between the parties as well as the satisfaction of the claim in the form of payment of Rs.5 lacs.  The consent letter dated 14.03.2019, affidavit dated 14.03.2019 and claim discharge-cum-satisfaction voucher are annexed as Annexures R-1 to R-3. In the consent letter dated 14.03.2019, the complainant has categorically undertaken never to raise any issue or enter into any litigation regarding any matter covered by the aforesaid settlement. The OPs prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
6.     It is observed that the complainant had duly executed a consent letter dated 14.03.2019 (Annexure R-1), whereby he voluntarily accepted Rs.5 lakhs as full and final settlement of his claim and further undertook never to raise any issue or litigation on the mutually negotiated settlement between the parties. The relevant portion of the above said letter dated 14.03.2019 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

    “I have agreed to accept the sum of Rs.773913/- loss policy excess Rs.2000 less additional excess Nil and less salvage value Rs.20000 less non-standard amount (For Non Submission of sale deed and vehicle service history record from Authorized dealer) 251913 s.500000/- (Five lac only) as a mutually negotiated full & final settlement on Total Loss basis subject to cancellation of policy & Registration Certificate from the date of loss. I undertake that I will never raise an issue, or litigation on this mode of mutually negotiated settlement. My Insurers are not at all involved in the disposal of Salvage and area not liable for any other expenses or any further legal litigation"

7.     The aforesaid consent letter was followed by a duly attested affidavit (Annexure R-2) executed by the Complainant reiterating the contents of the consent letter. At the same time, the complainant also executed a claim discharge cum settlement voucher (Annexure R-3) clearly specifying therein that he was fully satisfied with the full and final settlement with regard to his claim and a relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under:-

    “Received from Bajaj Reliance General Insurance Company Limited the sum of Rs. Five lac only towards full and final settlement of claim under policy Number in respect of damage to loss of HR26BG8540 on 09.11.2018. I am fully satisfied with the full and final settlement with respect to my claim.

500000/-                           Sd/-

Pardeep Kumar

Signature of Insured

 

8.     The factum of the complainant having accepted the said payment of Rs.5 lakhs through NEFT is clearly borne out from his own admission in the e-mail dated 27.03.2019 (Annexure C-21). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and consistently followed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that once the insured accepts a particular amount in full and final settlement of his claim, he is estopped from claiming any further amount from the insurance company, since the settlement constitutes a binding contract between the parties unless it is shown that it was influenced by use of coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation. The same was recently reiterated by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case titled as "M/s. K N Resources Pvt. Ltd. v. Divisional Manager/regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." 2019 (1) CPR 706, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

    “The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is that it was coerced and compelled by the insurer to sign certain blank receipts/vouchers/DV, on the pretext that unless the said papers were signed the due amount will not be paid. It is also alleged in para 31 of the complaint that the complainant had no choice but to accept the settlement since it was already in a lot of distress on account of undue delay and was suffering heavy business losses.

"9. In the present case, the only plea taken in the letter dated 30.9.2015 sent by the complainant to the OP was that they were forced to sign the Discharge Voucher as the insurer refused to release their claim amount in the absence of the discharge voucher. Assuming the said allegation to be correct, the refusal of the insurer to release the claim amount in the absence of a discharge voucher, in my view, does not amount to fraud, misrepresentation, coercion of undue influence as defined in the Indian Contract Act. If the insurer was insisting upon execution of the Discharge Voucher as a pre-condition for release of the assessed amount and the complainant was not willing to do so, nothing prevented it from filing a consumer complaint or a Civil Suit and seeking an Interim order, directing the insurer to pay the said amount. Though, it is vaguely alleged in the consumer complaint that the complainant company was already in a lot of distress due to undue delay of five years and was suffering heavy business losses on a daily basis, no such allegation was even made in the letter dated 30.9.2015. Moreover, no documentary evidence such as the Balance Sheet and the Profit and Loss Account of the complainant has been placed by the complainant before this Commission to prove that the complainant company was in a financial distress during the relevant period and was suffering losses in its business on account of the claim amount not being made available to it. Therefore, it would be difficult to accept the plea that the complainant was compelled to execute the discharge voucher on account of any financial distress or hardship.

10. As held by this Commission in Anshupati Fibres Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that once the insured accepts a particular amount in full and final settlement of his claim, he is estopped form claiming any further amount from the insurance company. since the settlement constitutes a binding contract between the parties unless it is shown that it was influenced by use of coercion, undue influence, fraud, mistake or misrepresentation. In the present case, no such influencing factor has been established by the complainant.

11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs."

9.     Further, the Hon'ble National Commission in the case titled as "Manali Malik v. ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. 2021(2)-CLT-87 held that once the discharge voucher has been fully signed and no protest has been indicated in signing of the discharge voucher, the settlement cannot be called into question until one party has been accused of breach of terms and conditions of the settlement. It was further held that if the complainant wants to challenge the settlement deed, Civil Court would be the appropriate forum and this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to cancel or to amend the settlement deed entered into between the parties with their free will. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-

    "It has now been said that the matter was settled on account of financial hardship and the same can also be covered under misrepresentation/ Coercion/fraud and undue influence. Though, there may be pressing circumstances for entering into the settlement, however, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors (Supra) the settlement deed and discharge voucher cannot be questioned if forgery and, coercion or undue influence or misrepresentation is not proved. Therefore, the challenge to the settlement deed or discharge voucher is not maintainable. This is all the more true because the complaint which was filed against the same opposite party for the same cause of action was withdrawn by the complainant. Had the OPs not implemented the settlement deed the complainant was free to file the execution with this Commission, however, this is not the case in the present complaint. The present complaint basically challenges the settlement deed itself. If the complainant wants to challenge the settlement deed, Civil Court would be the appropriate forum and this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to cancel or to amend the settlement deed entered into between the parties with their free will.”

10.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no hesitation to conclude that once the complainant has accepted the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs in full and final settlement of his claim and undertakes never to raise any issue or enter into any litigation regarding any matter covered by the aforesaid settlement, he is stopped from claiming any further amount from the Insurance Company as the settlement constitutes a binding contract between the parties unless it is shown that it was influenced by use of coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation. Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
11.     In view of the reasons stated above, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
12.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
13.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 01/09/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER