| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 78 of 15-3-2022 Decided on : 02-06-2023 Pavitar Singh aged about 31 years, S/o Bhola Singh, R/o near Government Secondary School, Village Sivia Tehsil and Distt. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office, Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, GE Plaza, Yerwada, Pune-411006, through its Regional Manager. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Sandhu Tower, 5th Floor, B-XX-3369, Gurdev Nagar, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana-141001, through its Senior Manager. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 2739 A & B, Grover Complex, G.T. Road, Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Balkaran Singh Ghuman, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Pavitar Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of car No.PB-03BG-4638 Model 2011 and the said vehicle is comprehensively insured with opposite parties vide Insurance Policy No.OG-22-1203-1801-00000673 w.e.f. 08.09.2021 to 07.09.2022 with IDV of Rs.5,00,000/- on payment of premium of Rs.25,181/-. The opposite parties did not supply any terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant although they are bound to supply the same. It is alleged that on 30.09.2021 at about 8.30 p.m. the complainant was going on his above said car No.PB-03BG-4638 to Goniana Mandi and when he reached just ahead from village Gill Patti near Pearls Colony, due to short circuit the car suddenly caught fire. The complainant after parking car on slip road, made phone call to Fire Brigade, Bathinda but however before reaching the officials of Fire Brigade, the car was completely burnt. The occurrence has taken place suddenly. The complainant lodged DDR No.23 dated 02.10.2021 with P.S. Thermal, Bathinda, in this regard. It is also alleged that the intimation of this accident was given to the opposite parties and opposite parties deputed the surveyor who conducted survey of the vehicle and the complainant submitted the required documents to the surveyor. The surveyor of the opposite parties took signatures of the complainant on some blank printed forms including claim form with the assurance that the car has been completely damaged and total claim as per IDV of Rs.5,00,000/- will be paid at the earliest. It is further alleged the opposite parties illegally and arbitrarily decided the claim without giving any cogent reason and settled at Rs.4,00,000/- without the consent of the complainant and transferred the said amount in the account of the complainant through NEFT on 25.01.2022, but however, the opposite parties has not paid the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- against the IDV of Rs.5,00,000/- and withheld the above said amount illegally and arbitrarily. The complainant requested several times to the opposite parties to settle the claim as per IDV of Rs.5,00,000/- and to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as per terms and conditions of Insurance policy although not supplied, but the opposite parties did not make the payments. The surveyor of the opposite parties has never sent any final survey report to the complainant although the surveyor and the opposite parties are legally bound to supply the same. The surveyor is working under the thumb of opposite parties and he can not afford to disoblige their master i.e. opposite parties from where he is to obtain business so he always to toe the dictates of the opposite parties as such the surveyor has wrongly assessed the loss at Rs.4,00,000/ as per choice of the opposite parties, against the IDV of Rs.5,00,000/-. The above said decision of the opposite parties of Rs.4,00,000/- against the IDV of Rs.5,00,000/- of the car is arbitrary, illegal and against the principle of natural justice as well as against the rules and law of insurance. Due to the above said illegal act and conduct of the opposite party, the complainant is suffering physical, mental and financial loss for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. balance of IDV of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment and Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in summary procedure under the 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. The complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as opposite parties. It has been pleaded that complainant has concealed the fact that the complainant got the vehicle insured with opposite parties by concealing the true purchase price and market value of the vehicle in question. The complainant had purchased the second hand/used car for Rs.3,80,000/- and its market value was also on the lower side as per online price verification. The complainant suffered a statement to this effect and negotiated the Insured Declared Value. The complainant agreed to receive Rs.4,00,000/- in full and final settlement of entire claim after keeping the damage vehicle himself and executed notarized consent letter. Therefore, the complainant is estopped from claiming any further amount especially after acting upon the statement, consent letter and discharge voucher by receiving the agreed amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. The complainant is misleading this Commission by hiding the main facts, as complainant himself signed the Consent Letter Cash Loss excluding damaged vehicle, vide which he stated that he accept Rs. 4,00,000/- as mutually negotiated full and final settlement excluding the value of damaged vehicle. Further stated that he will never raise an issue or litigation on this mode of mutually negotiated settlement, therefore, present compliant liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. On merits, opposite parties have pleaded that an intimation was received regarding the alleged incident and the opposite parties deputed Mr. Vikas Chander Jain as surveyor to conduct the survey and assess the loss, who conducted survey and submitted final survey report dated 19.01.2022 (Ex.OP1/6) holding it as a case of total loss. In further reply, the opposite parties reiterated their version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10). In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence two affidavits (Ex. OP-1/7 & Ex. OP-1/8) and the documents Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/6 and Ex. OP-1/9 to Ex. OP-1/13) The learned counsel for the complaiant has argued that complainant has got his car insured with the opposite parties vide policy of Insurance Ex. C-3 with IDV of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further argued that car of the complainant was totally damaged in accidental fire on 30-9-2021 regarding which complaint was lodged with the police vide General Diary No. 23 (Ex C-4) and has also placed on record photographs of the burnt car (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7). It is further argued that surveyor of the opposite parties obtained signatures of the complainant on various blank printed form with the assurance that complainant shall be paid IDV of Rs. 5,00,000/- at the earliest. It is also argued that opposite parties thereafter resiled from their assurance and had paid only Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant and have illegally and unlawfully withheld remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant had purchased second hand car for Rs. 3,80,000/- and market value was on the lower side as per price verification. It is further argued that complainant had suffered a statement to that effect and negotiated insured declared value. It is further argued that complainant agreed to receive Rs. 4,00,000/- towards full and final settlement and executed consent letter (Ex. OP-1/1). It is also argued that since the complainant signed a discharge voucher and accepted the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- in full and final settlement of claim and as such, now he cannot raise the matter and has prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, in the case titled as M/s. Prabhu Dayal Trilok Chand Vs. Oriental Insurnace Co. Ltd., & Anr., reported as 2022 (3) CPR 90 wherein it has been held that “Complainant cannot be permitted to reagitate amount received under protest – After signing the discharge voucher and accepting the amount in full and final settlement.” We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file and written arguments submitted by the opposite parties. It is admitted fact that car of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties vide policy of Insurance Ex. C-3 with IDV of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further admitted fact that car of the complainant was totally damaged in accidental fire on 30-9-2021 and that the opposite parties have paid Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant. Now the question before this Commission is whether the opposite parties are right in withholding Rs. 1,00,000/- and non-payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- which is IDV of the vehicle as per policy of insurance Ex. C-3. This Commission is of the view that although IDV of the car of the complainant was Rs. 5,00,000/- as per policy of insurance Ex. C-3, however, a perusal of consent letter Ex. OP-1/1 which is duly signed by complainant and rather notarized, shows that it has been clearly written that after mutual discussions and negotiations, I have voluntarily accepted full and final settlement of my claim and I declare that I hereby agree to accept the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as mutually negotiated full and final settlement excluding the value of damaged vehicle which will be retained by me and I have taken possession of the damaged vehicle. It is further written that I shall not raise any further dispute with Bajaj Finance, in future.” Further the plea of the learned counsel for the complainant that surveyor obtained signatures on various blank forms, is falsified from the letter Ex. OP-1/2 wherein the complainant has himself requested the opposite parties to pay the settled amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Even as per his own statement Ex. OP-1/3, the complainant has admitted to have purchased car in question for Rs. 3,80,000/-. Moreover, the learned counsel for the complainant is trying to challenge the report of surveyor who has nowhere made the surveyor as party to the complaint, rather has not even opted to cross examine the surveyor who has tendered his affidavit Ex. OP-1/7. Therefore, from the evidence on record and by relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble National Commission and in view of the discharge voucher having been executed by the complainant voluntarily without any pressure, this Commission is of the view that complainant is not entitled to receive Rs. 1,00,000/- as prayed for. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 02-06-2023 - (Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
