Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 13.
Instituted on : 04.03.2013.
Decided on : 07.04.2015.
Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal son of Sh. Jai Parkash, now resident of house no.6/211, Neel Kant Vihar Colony, near Andh Vidhayala, Saharanpur(UP).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Bharti Axa GICL, through its Branch Manager, Second Floor, SCO, 23, 24, 25, Red Square Market, Hissar-125001.
- Amit Goyal Agent, Bharti Axa G.I.C.L.,Court compound, Rohtak.
- Sh. Surender Dahiya, Auto Risk Management Service Pvt. Ltd., 1448-B, Chander Palace, Model Town, near Apex Public School Rohtak.
- Sushil Kumar, Senior Specialist Claim, Bharti Axa, G.I.C.L., 2ND Floor, Big Jo’s Tower, A-8, Netaji Subhash Palace Pitampura, New Delhi-110034.
- Palm Ford, Authorised Dealer of Ford and Cashless Service Centre of Bharti Axa, G.I.C.L., Jind Road, Rohtak through its G.M.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Atul Goel, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 & 3 already exparte.
Oppsoite party no.4 already given up.
Ms. Lovleen Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party no.5.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration no.HR-02Y-0627 which was duly insured with the opposite party no.1 through its Agent/opposite party No.2 vide policy no.31401633 for the period 31.03.2012 to 30.03.2013. It is averred that the above said vehicle met with an accident and the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party no.1 and completed all the required formalities. It is averred that opposite party asked the complainant to bring the said vehicle at the centre of opposite party no.5 and in this process complainant has incurred an amount of Rs.6000/- as tochan charges. It is averred that opposite party No.3 got conducted the survey of the damaged vehicle and reported that the vehicle has been total damaged and had submitted his report in the office of opposite party no.4. It is averred that the opposite party no.4 sent photographs and one blank discharge voucher and pressurized the complainant to return the said discharge voucher after signing the same and after that they will fill up the same. Opposite party no.4 assured the complainant that if the repair of the said vehicle is not found justified by complainant, in this event they will settle the claim on total loss basis. The complainant under compelling circumstances sent the said discharge voucher after signing the same to the opposite party no.5 and opposite party no.5 sent the same to opposite party no.4 and also made note on the said voucher that the same was signed under pressure. It is averred that the opposite party no.5 handed over the bills dated 31.01.2013 showing therein to deposit balance amount Rs.45218/- to take the delivery of said vehicle, while total bill was Rs.279383/- which is more than 75% loss of the said vehicle. It is averred that opposite party no.5 after deducting the amount of discount, received Rs.36000/- and handed over the delivery of vehicle to the complainant. It is averred that the said vehicle has not been repaired properly and has some defects therein and resale value of the vehicle has become very less. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to settle the claim of said vehicle as per total loss basis but no heed was paid to his requests. It is averred that the complainant is ready to return the delivery of vehicle to the opposite party no.1 in case the claim is settled on the basis of total loss and the I.D.V. of the vehicle was Rs.340000/-. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to settle the claim on total loss basis, to pay Rs.6000/- as touchan expenses, Rs.20000/- as incurred by the complainant in coming from Saharanpur to Rohtak and Rs.36000/- as paid for repair charges, to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the answering opposite party has already settled the claim of the consumer as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is averred that the complainant has accepted the amount of Rs.234165/- as full and final acceptance of the claim by duly executing Discharge Voucher. It is averred that the opposite party was ready to settle the claim on total loss basis but the answering opposite party has settled the claim for Rs.234165/- as the complainant has showed his willingness to get the vehicle repaired. It is averred that the answering opposite party made the full and final payment of Rs.234165/- as per the settlement between the complainant and the answering opposite party. It is averred that if there has been any defect in the repair of the vehicle, it is the opposite party no.5 who is liable to get the vehicle repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and as per the settlement, the complainant issued the discharge voucher. . It is averred that the present complaint has been filed just to pressurize the answering opposite party. It is prayed that the present complaint is not tenable and the same may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost.
3. Opposite party no.5 in its reply has stated that the answering opposite party has raised bill as per repair and changing for parts and has charged legally. It is averred that the vehicle was repaired properly. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is averred that the complaint qua the answering opposite party may kindly be dismissed. However, opposite party no.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.08.2013 of this Forum and opposite party no.4 was given up by the complainant vide statement dated 13.01.2014.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence. However opposite party no.5 failed to adduce its evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and the evidence of opposite party no.5 was closed by the Court order dated 23.01.2015.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the complainant vide discharge voucher Ex.R4 had accepted the amount of Rs.234165/- as full and final satisfaction. As per the statement Ex.R5 also the complainant has stated that he wants to repair his vehicle and does not want total loss of vehicle. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant signed the blank discharge voucher under pressure and has made a note to this effect on the discharge voucher. Copy of alleged discharge voucher is also placed on file as Ex.P6. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 has placed on file copy of discharge voucher Ex.R4.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that both the discharge vouchers i.e. Ex.P6 and Ex.R4 are signed by the complainant and it is not proved on file by the complainant that Ex.R4 is manipulated and the signatures of the complainant made on Ex.R4 are fraudulent. In this regard as per law laid down in 2011(1) CPC 317 titled as New India Assurance Company Vs. C.P.Mathur Hon’ble National Commission has observed that in case full and final settlement was accepted by the complainant voluntarily without any protest and the discharge voucher was signed, the complaint cannot be allowed”, as per order dated 4.9.2008 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula, titled Savitri Devi Vs. NIC etc., it is held that: “The complainant had accepted the amount voluntarily and without any coercion or misrepresentation or fraud exercised upon him-Appeal dismissed”, as per 2006(3)PLR 76, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India, has held that: “Full and final satisfaction of claims-Offer made by railway to appellant that if offer not acceptable cheque should be returned forthwith, failing which it would be deemed that appellant accepted offer in full and final satisfaction of claims-Acceptance of two cheques by appellant and their encashment by it amounted to acceptance of amounts in full and final settlement of claims”. The aforesaid law are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case also, the complainant had accepted the amount voluntarily and without any coercion or misrepresentation or fraud exercised upon him.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.04.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
