Haryana

StateCommission

A/288/2016

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHAG SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       288  of 2016

Date of Institution:       07.04.2016

Date of Decision :        24.10.2016

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Bhag Singh son of Ram Kishan, resident of Village and Post Office Shamgarh, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                  

Argued by:          Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Ganesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Shriram General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated January 27^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Bhag Singh-complainant was allowed.  District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,17,844/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, February 15^th, 2011 till its realization and Rs.5500/- for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      Combine Harvester bearing registration No.HR05F-8960 owned by the complainant met with an accident on April 22^nd, 2010. The Combine was insured with the Insurance Company from January 20^th, 2010 to January 19^th, 2011. He filed claim before the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company paid Rs.47,992/- towards full and final settlement of the claim to the complainant vide Claim Discharge Cum Satisfaction Voucher (Annexure A-6). 

3.      Dissatisfied with the amount, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Karnal.

4.      The question for consideration is whether the complainant had received the amount of Rs.47,992/- in full and final settlement of his claim or not?

5.      Indisputably, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.47,992/- from the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of his claim.  He signed the Claim Discharge Cum Satisfaction Voucher (Annexure A-6).

6.      It was not the case of the complainant that execution of the aforesaid Discharge Voucher (Annexure A-6) was obtained by the Insurance Company under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation etc.  So, he could not be allowed to reopen his claim.

7.      In National Insurance Co. Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.(2009) 1 SCC 267, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“25.   Where one of the parties to the contract issues a full and final discharge voucher (or no-dues certificate, as the case may be) confirming that he has received the payment in full and final satisfaction of all claims, and he has no outstanding claim, that amounts to discharge of the contract by acceptance of performance and the party issuing the discharge voucher/certificate cannot thereafter make any fresh claim or revive any settled claim nor can it seek reference to arbitration in respect of any claim.”

8.      In Aradhna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Through Sh. Ashok Avasthi, Managing Director Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2015 (2) CPR 482 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission after relying upon a judgment titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd, 2015 AIR SCW 67 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant had accepted the payment in full and final settlement of it’s claim.

9.      In the case in hand, the complainant has not been able to produce any evidence to show that there was misrepresentation, fraud or coercion on the part of the Insurance Company in paying the amount of Rs.47,992/-, rather, the amount was received by him with free consent. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

10.    For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 24.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK