Haryana

StateCommission

A/1495/2017

NARENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLA MANDLAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.KUNDU

02 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  :        1495 of 2017

Date of Institution:       08.12.2017

Date of Decision :        02.02.2018

 

 

Narender Singh son of Shri Baljit Singh, resident of House No.964/30, Vikash Nagar, Bhiwani Road, Jind.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Head Office at 2^nd Floor, Dare House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001 through its Managing Director.

 

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Jind through its Branch Manager, Office in the premises of Indusind Bank Limited, Branch at Jind.

 

3.      Indusind Bank Limited, Branch at Jind, the authorized insurer on behalf of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

                            

Argued by:          Shri Chirag Kundu, Advocate for appellant.

 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Narender Singh-complainant has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated November 06^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Vehicle bearing registration No.HR56A-7069 owned by the complainant was stolen on the intervening night of August 15^th/16^th, 2015. First Information Report No.642 dated August 17^th, 2015 under Section 379 was registered in Police Station City, Jind. The vehicle was insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) from June 10^th, 2015 to June 09^th, 2016. The complainant filed claim before the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company paid Rs.3,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim to the complainant vide Consent Letter (Annexure P-1). 

3.      Dissatisfied with the amount, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

4.      The question for consideration is whether the complainant had received the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim or not?

5.      Indisputably, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of his claim.  He signed the Consent Letter (Annexure P-1).

6.      It was not the case of the complainant that execution of the aforesaid Consent Letter (Annexure P-1) was obtained by the Insurance Company under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation etc.  So, he could not be allowed to reopen his claim.

7.      In National Insurance Co. Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.(2009) 1 SCC 267, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“25.   Where one of the parties to the contract issues a full and final discharge voucher (or no-dues certificate, as the case may be) confirming that he has received the payment in full and final satisfaction of all claims, and he has no outstanding claim, that amounts to discharge of the contract by acceptance of performance and the party issuing the discharge voucher/certificate cannot thereafter make any fresh claim or revive any settled claim nor can it seek reference to arbitration in respect of any claim.”

8.      In Aradhna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Through Sh. Ashok Avasthi, Managing Director Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2015 (2) CPR 482 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission after relying upon a judgment titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd, 2015 AIR SCW 67 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant had accepted the payment in full and final settlement of it’s claim.

9.      In the case in hand, the complainant has not been able to produce any evidence to show that there was misrepresentation, fraud or coercion on the part of the Insurance Company in paying the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, rather, the amount was received by him with free consent. Thus the impugned order passed by the District Forum does not call for interference.  The appeal is dismissed.  

 

Announced 02.02.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.K