The record is placed before us for passing final order.
Brief fact of the case is that the complainant is the owner of one Bolero pick-up van registration no.-WB-63-46521. That vehicle was insured with the O.P. namely Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.and that was valid on and from 22/12/11 to 10/12/12. On 30/05/12 that vehicle met with an accident at Power Khal within Police Station Bilashipara, Assam. After receiving the information of accident of this vehicle the complainant went to the place of occurrence and from there he informed the matter to the agent of the O.P. and Bilashipara, Police Case no.384/2012 u/s 379/338/427 dt.02/06/12 of the IPC was registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by Jamiruddin. The surveyor of the O.P. came and inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss of the vehicle due to said accident. The complainant repaired the vehicle and he had to expend Rs.1,00,000/- in total for repairing the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant submitted his claim in the office of the O.P. but the O.P. assessed the claim at Rs.14,988/-only and transferred the said amount in the account of the complainant. The complainant thereafter visited the office of the O.P. several times and lodged written complaint on 02/11/12 regarding his grievance and demand of Rs.1,00,000/- but the O.P. gave no reply. Hence this case.
The O.P. has contested the case by filing a Written Version denying and disputing inter-alia the claim and contention of the complaint with prayer for dismissal of the case.
The specific stand of the O.P. is that they finally settled the claim of the complainant at Rs.14,988 considering surveyor’s assessment and that the complainant has willfully and voluntarily undertaken the same vide his letter of undertaking dt. 17/09/2012 and that the complainant has also accepted and acknowledged the same as full and final settlement of his claim by signing the Claim Discharge-cum-Satisfaction voucher dt.17/09/12.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the case/ application maintainable as alleged?
- Is the complainant a consumer as per provision of Sec.2(d) of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
- Was there any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All four points are taken up together for consideration and decision for the sake of convenience.
Seen and perused the pleadings of the parties and all other relevant materials on record including the written arguments filed by the parties.
It was argued by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. that their surveyor inspected and surveyed the vehicle in question and submitted final report on 17/09/12 and there he assessed the total damage of the vehicle at Rs.14988/- only. On the basis of the said final report of the O.P. finally settled the claim of the complainant at Rs.14,988/- and the complainant has voluntarily accepted the same vide a letter of undertaking dt.17/09/12 and he also accepted and acknowledged the same as full and final settlement of his Claim by putting his signature on the Discharge-cum-Satisfaction voucher dt.17/09/12 and as such the present case is not maintainable/tenable in law at all and it is liable to be dismissed as per settled Principle of law as held by the Hon’ble National Commission time to time in several cases. Ld.Lawyer has referred some case laws reported in 2013(1)CPR 367(NC) in Jiwan Spinners Pvt.Ltd. Versus New India Insurance Co. Ltd., case 2014(1)CPR 2(NC) in Chittiprolu Lokeshwara Rao and another versus the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, case and 2013(3) CPR140(NC) in M/S K.K. Jewels Impex versus Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. case, in support of his above claim and contention. In reply the Ld.Lawyer for the complainant couldn’t cite any case law against the case laws referred to above by the Ld.Lawyer for the O.P. He argued that the assessment made by the assessors was not proper and the complainant put his signatures on annexture 2(undertaking) and on annexture 3(Claim Discharge-cum-Satisfaction) on good faith without knowing the contents of the same and the contents of those annextures were not read over and explained to the complainant by anybody before putting his signature and that the complainant cannot read and write english and he can anyhow write his name in English and that the complainant raised his objection after receiving Rs.14988/-.
Now after due consideration of the arguments of Ld.Lawyers and the materials on record we find that the complainant couldn’t substantiate his aforesaid claims by sufficient evidence. Furthermore he couldn’t produce any authentic documents to show that he raised objection before putting his signature on Annexture A and B. That apart we find that the complainant has put his signatures on every page of his petition of complaint and on the verification as well as on the affidavit form and nobody has read over and explained the contents of the petition of complaint its verification and the affidavit form to the complainant. We further find that the petition of complaint is not supported by affidavit. Now from the decision referred to above by the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. we find that in all the cases the Hon’ble National Commission has held that , “Where the complainant has accepted amount in full and final satisfaction of claim, complaint filed by him was not maintainable” and that Complainant having voluntarily entered into full and final settlement is now estopped from re-agitating claim by filing complaint complaint dismissed,” The aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble National Commission are well applicable in our present case. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble National Commission , as the complainant has accepted Rs.14,988 towards full and final satisfaction of his claim without raising any objection and by putting his signature on annextures 2 and 3. So the present complaint filed by him is not maintainable and it deserves dismissal.
In this view of the matter discussion on other points will be redundant.
In the result the case/application fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the case/ application being not maintainable stands dismissed on contest but in the circumstances we make no order as to cost.
Let copy of this final order be supplied to the parties free of cost forthwith in terms of Sec.5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987.
