KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 854/2006

JUDGMENT  DATED 18.2.2011

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                      : JUDICIAL MEMBER            

APPELLANT

United India Insurance Company Ltd,

Kannur

Rep. by Senior Divisional Manager,

Francis Joseph,

Divisional Office-1,

LMS Compound, Thiruvananthapuram.

                               ( Rep. by  Adv. Sri. R.Jagadish Kumar)                                

                                        Vs

RESPONDENT

C.V. Raveendranath,

S/o Chandukutty,

Managing Director,

Kunhikannan jewellery,

Gold House, Kannur

                                  (Rep. by  Adv. D. Ganesh Kumar)

JUDGMENT 

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred by the opposite party/Insurance company against the order dt 30.8.2006 of CDRF, Kannur in O.P. 104/02. The Forum below directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 56,890/- with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant.

          The case of the complainant is that the car bearing registration KL 13 G 544, which was insured with the opposite party caused serious damage due to heavy rain and flood.  So he approached the opposite party for insurance claim and submitted the claim complying with all the formalities required.  The total claim comes to Rs. 1,43,555.58 But the opposite party sanctioned only  a sum of Rs. 86,675/-.  No details of calculation were given to the complainant.  On 22.1.2003 the complainant sent a letter of the Senior Divisional Manager of the opposite party.  But no reply was received.  On 6.3.2003 he sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party but to that notice also the opposite party did not respond.  Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party he filed a complaint before the forum claiming the balance amount of Rs. 56,890/- along with compensation and costs.

          The opposite party filed version and contented that the complainant had received the amount in full and  final settlement.  According to the opposite party the complainant has signed in the discharge voucher and accepted the amount in full and final settlement, and encashed the amount on 19.2.2003.  Hence he is not entitled to re-agitate the matter.  They further contented that the complainant raised dispute and preferred the complaint after a lapse of more than a year and as per condition No. 7 of the policy, the proceedings of the dispute have to be initiated in a court of law within 12 calendar months.  Here the complaint was filed after one year from the acceptance of the amount.  Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   Thus they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          The evidence adduced consisted of oral testimony of Pw1, DWs 1 and 2 Exts. A1 to A11 and Exts. B1 to B6.

          We heard the learned counsel for both sides.  The counsel for the appellant argued for the position that the forum below went wrong in directing the appellant to pay Rs. 56,890/- forgetting the fact that the amount was received towards full and final settlement.  He further submitted that the cheque was encashed on 19.2,2003 and the complaint was filed on 24.4.2004 ie, after 12 months and it is against the contract of insurance entered between the appellant and the respondent. Moreover M/s. Rajasree Motors, Ernakulam                                had made an estimate of Rs. 70,087/- as labour charges and surveyor has allowed only 19,500/- and the forum directed to give the entire amount shown in the repair charges in their  estimate  and not  Rs. 19,500/- allowed by the surveyor.  He further submitted that the appellant offered a sum of Rs. 86,675/- and it was agreeable to the respondent/complainant.   The respondent/complainant accepted the amount in full and final settlement of the claim and there after he again asked for further amount. Hence the appellant is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent/complainant.  Thus he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the forum below.

          On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions arrived by the forum below and argued for the position that the mere acceptance of the amount of Rs,. 86,675/- would not amount to discharge of the total claim of Rs. 1, 43,555.58 and no details of calculation was given to the respondent/complainant.  So he could not understand how the valuation was made and sanction a lesser amount.  Thus he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

          On hearing both sides and on perusing the records we find that after agreeing to full and final settlement, the matter can not be re-agitated except where fraud, mis representation etc. are  alleged.  In the instant case, it is not disputed that the complainant has received a sum of Rs. 86,675/- by signing a discharge voucher in which it is recorded that payment being made to the complainant was in full and final discharge of the claim.  The question to be considered is whether the insured can lodge a claim for any further amount after executing the discharge voucher on full and final settlement of his claim.   This aspect has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of united India Insurance Company Ltd.  Vs AJMER Singh Cotton and General Mills and others. II(1999)CPJ 10(SC) and had observed that in case the discharge voucher is voluntarily signed by a party he cannot thereafter dispute the execution of such voucher unless he pleads fraud or coercion.

          In the instant case, we find that the complainant has made no allegation about the exercise of undue influence, misrepresentation, fraud etc.   The complainant failed to adduce any evidence to effect that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by the circumstances.   Moreover there is no allegation in the complaint to the effect that the amount he received was under protest.  The complainant encashed     the amount of Rs. 86,675/- on 19.2.2003 and the complaint was filed only on 27.4.2004.  The complainant has signed the discharge voucher, Then he is bound   by the contents of the said voucher.  On a perusal of the discharge voucher it is seen that the complainant has received a sum of Rs. 86,675/- in full and final settlement of his claim and the said amount was received without any protest.  If the complainant was not satisfied with the settlement of the claim, he could have written in the discharge voucher that the amount was received ‘under protest’ In the absence of such an endorsement, he is estopped from contenting that he is entitled for more amount than what was received.   Hence we find that there is no merit in the complaint.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Forum below is set aside.  As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs.

                                VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   :  MEMBER

                         M.V. VISWANATHAN            :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

ST