Haryana

StateCommission

A/408/2019

RAJBIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ANOOP KUMAR YADAV

16 May 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    408 of 2019

Date of Institution:  25.04.2019

Date of Decision:   16.05.2019

 

Rajbir son of Shri Kanwar Singh, resident of Village Chamdhera, Post Office Pali, District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

 

 

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 7^th Floor, Tower-A, No.5, DLF Phase III, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana).

 

 

Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Anoop Kumar Yadav, counsel for the appellant.

                            

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

            The complainant has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul, Mahendergarh, whereby complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stands disposed of by partly allowing the complaint and directed the opposite party-Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- to him as full and final settlement against the loss of his vehicle along with interest besides an amount of Rs.5,500/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

2.      According to the complainant his vehicle i.e. TATA-407 which he had got insured with the opposite party from 14.03.2017 to 13.03.2018 with IDV of Rs.4,50,000/- met with an accident, pursuant to which his vehicle turned turtle and caught fire resulting into total damage to his vehicle. He had given due information about the accident to the opposite party, who appointed an Investigator and thereafter an estimate of Rs.14,62,372/- was prepared by United Motors. He had been requesting the opposite party to pay the said amount but it was of no use, which constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He also issued legal notice to the opposite party to pay the estimate amount and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses. However, the same was not done leaving him with no other option but to institute the complaint.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite party apart from taking certain preliminary objections, challenged the claim of the complainant by pleading that at the time of loss, the vehicle in question was driven by Ramesh Kumar, who was not holding effective driving license. It also pleaded that there were four persons travelling in the vehicle including driver whereas only three persons were permitted. It was also alleged that the accident had taken place on 26.10.2017 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 30.11.2017.  Accordingly, the opposite party had repudiated the claim of the complainant. It was also denied that there was total loss to the vehicle or there was estimated loss to the tune of Rs.14,62,373/-.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service and no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, prayer was made for dismissing the complaint.

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on going through Paragraph 11 of the impugned order, it is made out that the complainant had submitted consent letter (Annexure C-7) executed on stamp paper of Rs.100/- regarding acceptance of claim to the tune of Rs.3,15,000/- as full and final settlement qua the loss in question. Once the complainant had settled the matter and agreed to receive an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- in all as full and final settlement of his claim, he cannot now turn around to plead that he was entitled to collect the amount of Rs.14,62,373/-.  It was on that account that the opposite party was directed by the learned District Forum to pay an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the realization.

5.      Resultantly, the State Commission does not find any ground to grant indulgence to the complainant against the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.

 

 

 

Announced 16.05.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.