BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.58 of 2018.
Date of institution: 08.02.2018.
Date of decision:02.12.2019.
Jatin Virmani son of Sh. Lokesh Virmani, resident of House No.1285, HUDA, Sector-19, Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered and Head Office: Dara House, 2nd floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600001.
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Manager, Ist Floor, Plot No.6, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
- IndusInd Bank, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Surender Chugh, Advocate for the complainant.
Op No.1 given up.
Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the OPs.No.2 & 3.
Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for the Op No.4.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration No.HR37-C/6970 with the Ops No.2 & 3 vide cover note No.57870287 policy No.3379/01266372/000/01 valid for the period 29.09.2016 to 28.09.2017 through the Op No.1. It is alleged that the aforesaid policy was package policy and the insured declared value was Rs.12,15,000/- and driver and cleaner were also insured with this policy and separate premium was paid for that. It is further alleged that Mahinder Singh son of Sh. Balu Ram, resident of Village Mataur was deputed as driver on the aforesaid vehicle and Dilbag Singh son of Sh. Hari Singh, resident of Village Geong was deputed as cleaner and on 5/6.6.2017 the said vehicle met with an accident near Pabnawa Petrol Pump. The vehicle of complainant was badly damaged in the said accident and driver Mahender Singh and cleaner Dilbag Singh received multiple injuries and lateron, Dilbag Singh succumbed to the injury. It is further alleged that an FIR No.0066 dt. 06.06.2017 under Sections 279/337/388 IPC was registered in P.S.Dhand. Information regarding accident was given to the Ops. The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and the Ops paid only Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant and the aforesaid amount was transferred in loan account of the complainant. It is further alleged that the vehicle was totally damaged and hence, complainant is entitled for 100% of insured amount. It is further alleged that the vehicle has become a scrap and the estimated value of the scrap is approximately Rs.1,30,000/-. The cleaner of vehicle namely Dilbag received serious injuries in the aforesaid accident and the complainant spent Rs.1,00,000/- on his treatment and as the driver and cleaner were separately insured and the complainant is also entitled for the amount spent on the treatment of the cleaner. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs No.2 to 4 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.1 was given-up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his statement recorded separately on 27.11.2018. Op No.2 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties; jurisdiction; estoppel; maintainability; locus-standi; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the complainant has received his claim of Rs.7 lac from the answering Op which had paid or was transferred in loan account of complainant with Indusind Bank on 24.07.2017 as full and final payment; that the complainant had submitted his consent letter on stamp paper of Rs.100/- duly attested by Notary Public Munish Kumar, Adv.; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 made statement on 25.02.2019 that the reply filed by the Op No.2 may also be read as reply on behalf of Op No.3.
3. Op No.4 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to mis-joinder of parties; jurisdiction; cause of action and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the Ops No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence. The Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW4/A and document Annexure-R2. The Ops No.2 & 3 tendered into additional evidence surveyor report Annexure-R2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. Undisputedly, the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration No.HR37-C/6970 with the Ops No.2 & 3 vide cover note No.57870287 policy No.3379/01266372/000/01 valid for the period 29.09.2016 to 28.09.2017 through the Op No.1 and the insured declared value was Rs.12,15,000/- and driver and cleaner were also insured with this policy and separate premium was paid for that. According to the complainant, the said vehicle met with an accident near Pabnawa Petrol Pump and the vehicle of complainant was badly damaged in the said accident and driver Mahender Singh and cleaner Dilbag Singh received multiple injuries and lateron, Dilbag Singh succumbed to the injury. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops paid only Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant and the aforesaid amount was transferred in loan account of the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,25,464.50 paise and the salvage value has been assessed to the tune of Rs.58,000/- and although the vehicle in question was totally damaged and he placed on file copy of estimate of Rs.15,59,867/-. The complainant has also placed on file estimate of damaged scrap to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/- but there is no actual bill placed on record. The complainant has placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2009(3) ACJ page 679 (SC) titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC; 2012(4) CPJ page 151 (NC) titled as NIC Vs. Giriraj Proteins and 1999(1) CPJ page 289 (Haryana State Commission) titled as M/s. Luxmi Rice Mills Vs. NIC.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. The Op No.2 has taken the objection in the written statement that the complainant has received his claim of Rs.7 lac from the Ops which had paid or was transferred in loan account of complainant with Indusind Bank on 24.07.2017 as full and final payment. Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 has placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2012(3) CPC page 129 (NC) titled as M/s. Shiv Ram Gramodyog Sansthan Vs. UII and copy of order dt. 04.12.2014 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as NIA Vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. bearing civil appeal No.10784 of 2014 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24652 of 2013. We have perused the consent letter Annexure-R1, wherein it has been mentioned that “After the mutual discussion and negotiations, I agree to retain the salvage with me and I am agreeing for the Net of Salvage loss/Cash loss mode of settlement for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only) as full and final quit for the accident claim. I am also agreeing for canceling the policy w.e.f. the date of accident viz. 05.06.2017 & surrendering the original insurance certificate at your end.” The complainant has put his signature on the said consent letter and duly attested by Notary Public Munish Kumar, Adv. So, from the said consent letter, it is clear that the complainant has accepted the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as full and final settlement of claim. In this regard, we can rely upon the case law titled as M/s. Shiv Ram Gramodyog Sansthan Vs. UII (supra), wherein it has been held that Insurance-Rice Mill of complainant covered under insurance policy of Rs.30 lacs against heavy rain and storm etc.-Machinery and building of Rice Mill was heavily damaged by the strong storm and heavy rain causing alleged loss of Rs.25 lacs-A sum of Rs.3,27,000/- was accepted as full and final claim-Claim filed for higher amount after 2 years 11 months and 10 days-No case of fraud as misrepresentation was pleaded by the complainant-There is no merit in the petition-Claim of Rs.3,27,000/- accepted as full and final settlement of claim upheld-Revision dismissed. The authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the facts of instant case because all the authorities are regarding discharge voucher which is generally to be taken by the company at the time of passing the claim but in the present case, the complainant has voluntarily executed the consent letter duly attested by Notary Public and signed by the complainant in the presence of witness. The complainant has not pleaded in his complaint that the consent letter has been obtained by the Ops by adopting any coercive method i.e. fraud as misrepresentation. Hence, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
9. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:02.12.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
