Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1105

Vikas Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sherry K. Singla

20 Jul 2015

ORDER

 

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,                                                PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1105 of 2012

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 22.08.2012                                                             Date of Decision : 20.07.2015

 

Vikas Singla, aged about 33 years, S/o Sh. Daya Krishan, R/o H.No.171, Kesar Market, Amargarh, District Sangrur.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …..Appellant/Complainant

         

                                      Versus

 

Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, Bigjos Tower, 2nd Floor, A-8, Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

 

                                                          … Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

 

First Appeal against order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant              :         None  

          For the respondents        :         Sh.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 12.07.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangrur, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant Vikas Singla has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that  he obtained the services of OP in insuring his Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.PB-28C-0068 for the period 13.03.2010 to 12.03.2011, vide Cover Note No.30103166. The insured declared value of the said vehicle was to the tune of Rs.3,54,000/- and complainant paid the premium of Rs.9119/- to the OP under the terms and conditions of the policy, which were , in fact,  not supplied to the complainant. On 26.12.2010, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near village Bogiwal District Sangrur and was badly damaged therein. Intimation about this accident was duly given to OP, vide claim no.C0075862, as allotted to the complainant. OP appointed surveyor for inspecting the vehicle and assessing the loss. On the instructions of the surveyor, the vehicle was taken to Bhagat Ford Sangrur and prepared the rough estimate of Rs.2,50,000/- for repairing the vehicle. They further stated to complainant that this estimate could go up to Rs.3 lac upon repair including service tax etc. The complainant spent Rs.4000/- on the preparation of estimate and Rs.1500/- for towing the vehicle to Bhagat Ford from the spot of accident. The surveyor appointed by the OP asked the complainant that he could sell the salvage of the vehicle to third party for Rs.1,50,000/- and after deducting the said payment, remaining payment of Rs.2,09,500/- (including Rs.5500/- as towing charges and estimate charges), would be released by the OP to complainant. The complainant agreed to sell the vehicle to third party and same was sold to Mohinder Pal Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of Dogra Street Patiala for Rs.1,50,000/-. The said surveyor obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank performa regarding the said settlement. The OP released the amount of Rs.1 lac to the complainant in March 2011 and also assured that remaining amount of Rs.1,09,500/- would be released shortly. The complainant alleged that insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.3,54,000/- and OP had not paid the full amount of Rs.3,54,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint against the OP about this matter.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in, as much as, he has no cause of action or locus standi to file the complaint. The complainant concealed the material facts from the Forum. On merits, it was admitted that car bearing registration No.PB-28C-0068 was insured with OP on the request of the complainant with effect from 13.03.2010 to 12.03.2011, subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was stated in the written reply that the above car met with an accident on 26.12.2010 and on receipt of the intimation, the OP appointed the Engineer Rajesh Aggarwal Surveyor & Loss Assessor for assessing the loss. The surveyor submitted report dated 17.02.2011 ascertaining the loss to the tune of Rs.1,53,847/- for repair of the car and less cashless margin of Rs.53,847/- and deduction clause of Rs.500/- and net compensation, which was payable to the complainant and was assessed, as Rs.1 lac by the surveyor. It was further pleaded by the OP that full and final settlement took place between the parties and complainant surrendered the policy and insurance certificate for Rs.1 lac and received this amount from OP towards full and final settlement of the claim on cashless basis. The complainant also executed the discharge certificate of the liability in this regard. The OP controverted the averments of the complainant on the ground that matter has been finally settled towards the full and final settlement of the claim by the complainant on receiving the amount of Rs.1 lac. OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence copy of certificate of insurance Ex.C-1, copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of FIR Ex.C-3, photographs Ex.C-4/A to Ex.C-4/C, copy of estimate bill Ex.C-5, receipt Ex.C-6, letter Ex.C-7, affidavit of Mohinder Pal Singh Ex.C-8, copy of receipt Ex.C-9, copy of letter Ex.C-10, copy of letter Ex.C-11, legal notice Ex.C-12, postal receipt Ex.C-13, affidavit of complainant Vikas Singla Ex.C-14. As against it, OP tendered in evidence copy of discharge certificate Ex.R-1, undertaking Ex.R-2, copy of discharge voucher Ex.R-3, surveyor report Ex.R-4, affidavit of Rajesh Aggarwal Surveyor & Loss Assessor Ex.R-5, affidavit of Deepa Area Manager Ex.R-6, copy of insurance policy and terms and conditions Ex.R-7. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Sangrur, dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 12.07.2012. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Sangrur dated 12.07.2012, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.   

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the respondent in this appeal, as none appeared on behalf of appellant at the time of arguments in this appeal. We find that since after 29.10.2014, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant in the appeal. We, thus, propose to decide this appeal on the basis of its merits with the aid of evidence on the record. The District Forum Sangrur dismissed the complaint of the complainant primarily on the ground that claim has been finally settled by the complainant on receiving the lump sum amount of Rs.1 lac from the OP. The complainant has challenged it in the complaint version being the outcome of obtaining his signatures on blank performa by the surveyor only. Evidence has been examined by us on the record to adjudicate this point. Ex.C-1 is policy document to the effect that complainant took policy for his private car for the period from 14.3.2010 to 13.3.2011. The insured declared value (IDV) of the car was Rs.3,54,000/- and requisite premium has been paid by the complainant to OP in this case. This point is not disputed before us. Ex.C-2 is registration of the vehicle bearing no.PB-28C-0068 in favour of the complainant on the record. Ex.C-3 is FIR lodged with regard to this accident, vide FIR No.166 dated 26.12.2010. Ex.C-4/A to Ex.C-4/C are the photographs showing dented and damaged vehicle. Ex.C-4 is the estimate report submitted by A.B Motors Pvt. Ltd of this vehicle. Ex.C-6 is the receipt of Rs.4000/- in cash dated 28.1.2011 by OP from complainant. Ex.C-7 is the receipt for payment of Rs.1500/- by New Janta Tempo Union for transporting the vehicle from the place of accident to Bhagat Ford Company the service station. Ex.C-8 is copy of affidavit of Mohinder Pal Singh that to the effect that he has purchased the car from Vikas Singla Complainant for Rs.1,50,000/- and has made the payment to him. Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 are the claim documents. Ex.C-11 is letter addressed to the customer, which is auto generated mail. Ex.C-12 is legal notice dated 26.4.2011 sent to OP on behalf of the complainant. Ex.C-13 is copy of postal receipt. Affidavit of complainant Vikas Singla Ex.C-14 on the record.

6.      The OP placed on record document Ex.R-1 executed by complainant on stamp paper to the effect that he has received lump sum amount of Rs.1 lac towards full and final settlement of the claim on cashless basis from the OP for accident of above-said vehicle. That he executed this document and agreed to surrender the insurance policy and insurance certificate for cancellation without any refund of premium. It is stated in it that the complainant has understood this settlement, subject to his satisfaction. Ex.R-2 is intimation by complainant to Bharti AXA General Insurance Company that he has finally settled the claim on cashless basis and he was ready to retain the accidental vehicle on, as on, as where basis. The discharge copy of the voucher executed by the complainant in favour of OP is Ex.R-3 on the record. It has proved that complainant has received the total amount of Rs.1 lac towards full and final settlement of the insurance claim. Ex.R-4 is report of Engineer Rajesh Aggarwal Surveyor & Loss Assessor. The Surveyor also found the net amount payable, as Rs.1 lac to the complainant in this report. He assessed the total loss to extent of Rs.1,53,847/- and less cash loss margin 35% and the amount of Rs.1 lac is found payable as net amount by the surveyor to the complainant about this accident of the vehicle, vide his report Ex.R-4 on the record. The affidavit of Surveyor Ex.R-5 is on the record proving his report, as correct. The affidavit of Deepa Area Manager Legal claims/OP Ex.R-6 is on the record to the effect that complainant voluntarily executed the discharge voucher without any pressure for settling the insurance claim for lump sum amount of Rs.1 lac as full and final settlement of the claim.

7.      From the critical appraisal of above-referred evidence on the record, we find that the order of the District Forum cannot said to be erroneous from any angle. The complainant is a legal counsel and is not expected to sign the documents in the blank form. He is legal luminary and it is presumed that he signed discharge voucher after duly understanding its terms and conditions. We find that Ex.R-1 is stamped paper, which was purchased by the complainant and it is signed by complainant in English and attested by notary. We do not find any force in the plea of the complainant that Ex.R-1 is outcome of getting his signature on the blank document by the surveyor. It is not credible to believe at all in our opinion. Ex.R-1 is attested by Notary Public and Vikas Singla complainant, who is legal counsel also signed it. We are unable to ignore this document Ex.R-1 on the record. Even otherwise, in the survey report of Rajesh Aggarwal also found the net claim payable, as Rs.1 lac in his report, as discussed above. The letter dated 1.2.2011 is signed by complainant addressed to OP Ex.R-2 to the effect that he did not want to get his vehicle repaired and settled claim on cashless basis and was ready to retain the accidental vehicle on, as on as where basis. Discharge voucher is Ex.R-3 on the record duly executed by the complainant. The discharge voucher Ex.R-3 carries weightage in our opinion and it cannot be outcome of any coercion, misrepresentation or fraud, as complainant failed to establish it before us on the record. In this regard, we are fortified by the law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus C.P Mathur, reported in 2011(1) CLT Page 570, that discharge voucher executed towards full and final payment, complaint filed after four months claiming additional amount. The complainant failed to make out any case of undue influence, coercive bargaining, fraud or promise and complaint was dismissed. Hon'ble National Commission New Delhi also held in Ajay Verma  versus  United India Insurance Company Ltd, reported in 2011(3) CLT that discharge voucher towards full and final payment. The claim of the petitioner settled  in view of the report submitted by the Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor towards full and final settlement. The petitioner an Advocate, once having signed the voucher, subsequently it did not lie in the mouth of the complainant to weave a new story. No illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error is committed by District Forum in dismissing the complaint of the complainant, who executed the discharge voucher. While relying upon the above-referred observations of Hon'ble National Commission, we hold that complainant has failed to make out any case of undue influence, coercive bargaining or fraud before us. Consequently, the complainant is estopped from challenging this matter again, once he had settled the amount by receiving the total amount of Rs.1 lac towards full and final settlement of the claim and thereby executed the discharge voucher in this regard. We are in agreement with the view taken by the District Forum in the order under challenge in this case. We have not come across any illegality in the order of the District Forum Sangrur dated 12.07.2012 calling for any interference therein. The order of the District Forum Sangrur dated 12.07.2012 is, thus, affirmed in this appeal. Finding no merits in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

8.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 14.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

9.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

July 20, 2015.                                                                

(ravi)