ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. This is a complaint seeking an insurance amount of Rs.1,89,210/- with 12% interest, compensation and cost. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is the registered owner of Toyotta Qualis bearing Reg.No.KL.23 with Engine No.9638514 and Chasis No.1019722 was purchased by the complainant on 30.11.2000. The complainant insured the vehicle with the first opp.party and the said vehicle was covered under the valid comprehensive Insurance policy covering 24.12.2003 as policy No.2004/5085. On 24.12.2003 at about 1.30 a.m. the vehicle met with an accident the vehicle sustained huge damages. At the time of accident the complainant issued notice of accident to the 1st opp.party and the insurer send their loss assessor to the spot and the loss assessor superficiently inspected the vehicle and submitted his report. For attending the repairs the vehicle was removed to the workshop of the 2nd opp.party at Kazhakkottam who is the authorized dealer of Toyotta. The 2nd opp.party prepared the job card and estimate of the repairs to be carried out. The 2nd opp.party prepared the total cost of repairs including labour charges comes to Rs.12,037,50 The 2nd opp.party prepared the vehicle substituting necessary parts as estimated and issued cash invoice No.32411 dated 27.2.2004 and demanded Rs.302896/- from the complainant The complainant submitted the estimate of repairs and the cash invoice issued by the 2nd opp.party to the first opp.party for indemnification and payment. The cost of the body shall replaced is Rs.1,66,500/- but the cost of that major item along with the cost of some other estimated items was not reimbursed by the first opp.party. Hence the complaint. 1st opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opp.party had issued a comprehensive policy to the complain ant for his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-2J/9818 for a period commencing from 29.11.2003 to 28.11.2004. This opp.party immediately on receipt of intimation of the claim from the complainant had deputed a licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor for inspecting damaged vehicle and for assessing the loss sustained to the complainant’s vehicle as per the policy condition. On 3.1.2004 the surveyor appointed by this opp.party had visited M/s. Mooppan Motors, Kazhakkoottam were the damaged vehicle was kept for repairs. The surveyor examined the damaged vehicle in detail and had discussion with a repairer and the insured regarding the revival of accidental damages. The repairers in the first estimate submitted by them had recommended replacement of the body shell at the request of the complainant. The repairer finally agreed with the assessment of the surveyor and accordingly the surveyor submitted his report before the opp.party assessing the damages sustained to the vehicle to a sum of Rs.1,16,792.51 and the salvage value to a sum of Rs.2,000/- The first estimate given by the repairer and the repair works done by them are as per the directions of the complainant and it has no application for the assessment of loss payable under the conditions of the policy. The complainant is entitled to get the loss indemnified as per the terms and conditions of the policy alone as is not expected to make a fortune our of the misfortune. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the 1st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. The 2nd opp.party filed a separate version contending that the 2nd opp.party is not at all a necessary party in the complaint. The complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 24.12.2003 and the complainant produced the vehicle at the showroom of the 2nd opp.party for repairs. The 2nd opp.party prepared the estimated repairs. Since the body shell of the vehicle sustained major damages the complainant requested the 2nd opp.party to replace the body shell and accordingly the 2nd opp.party replaced the body shell. After completion of the work the 2nd opp.party issued the cash invoice for Rs.3,02,896/- and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after making the full payment. The complainant issued a a satisfaction note dated 24.3.04 certifying his satisfaction of work done by the 2nd opp.party and acceptance of his vehicle in good condition . Hence the 2nd opp.party also prays to dismiss the complaint with their cost. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties? 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Exts. P1 to P6 are marked. For the opp.parties DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 to D5 are marked. POINTS: It is not disputed that the complainant’s vehicle KL 2J 9818 was insured with the first opp.party insurance company and that the policy was subsisting when the vehicle met with the accident. Here the question to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to get more amount than Rs.1,13,686/- from the 1st opp.party. According to the complainant the total estimated cost and labour charges prepared by6 2nd opp.party comes to Rs.3,12,037.50. The 2nd opp.party repaired the vehicle and substituted necessary parties and issued cash invoice demanding Rs.3,02,896/-. The complainant submitted the cash invoice land the estimate of repairs to the first opp.party for indemnification and payment. But the 1st opp.party admitted only an amount of Rs.1,13,686.04 . The complainant’s definite case is that he received the said sum under protest on14.9.2004 without prejudice to the right of the complain ant to claim the balance by initiating legal proceedings. 1st opp.party’s contentions are that in Ext. D4 letter, dated 31.8.2004 issued by 1st opp.party to the complainant, it has been specifically stated that the claim of the complainant has finally assessed for 1,13,686/- towards full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant thereafter produced Ext. D5 series discharge voucher duly signed by him along with letter dated 14.9.2004. Stating that he has received the claim amount as full and final settlement of his claim under the insurance policy. Here the complainant has no case that Ext.P5 series were obtained by the 1st opp.party by means of any fraud or mis-representation. In 2008 CPJ Vol.2 page 16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any pleadings that the discharge voucher executed by the complainant are under fraud, misrepresentation or the like, it is quiet justified in dismissing the complaint holding that discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily. According to 1st opp.party, they have finally settled the claim on the basis of the survey report prepared by DW.1 . Ext. D1 is a survey report prepared by a License holder issued by the IRDA in assessing the damages. Here there is no materials produced by the complainant to discredit the survey report prepared by DW.1. Hence Ext. D1 is accepted. DW.1 has deposed that the vehicle was quiet repairable and the repair works will not affect the performance and the look of the vehicle. Ext. C1 cannot be admitted because the recommendation of the commissioner in Ext.C1 that the required for the body replacement was inserted by him subsequently The handwriting and the ink used for the said finding in different and it does not contain the details of the damages sustained to the body shell and the nature of damages and the portion of damages to the body shell and the detailed description regarding the body shell found at the time of his inspection. Hence from the entire evidence we are of the view that the DW.1 assed the loss sustained to the complainant and the assessed amount was accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement of his claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opp.party. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No cost ordered. Dated this the 26th day of December, 2009. . : I N DE Xt List of witnesses for the complainant: PW.1. – Fazaludeen Kunju PW.2. – Remesh Chandran List of documents for the complainant P1. – Insurance policy P2. – Estimate of repairs P3. – Supplementary estimate of repairs P4. – Receipt and cash invoice P5. – Copy of letter dated 4.9.04 P6. – Copy of letter dated 14.9.2004 C1. – Commission report List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. - Suresh Babu DW.2. –R. Ashok List of documents for the opp.pareties D1. – Final report and photographs with negatives D2. – Inspection report D3. – Report and photographs D4. - Letter sent by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to the complainant D5.Dischargevoucher | 
