Quorum   : Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

                    Vikram Kr Dabas , Member

                     Manju Bala Sharma, Member       

                                                                     ORDER                                    Dated: 15-04-2017

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.  The complainant filed this complaint on 11-12-2013 and alleged that his truck bearing registration no. DL 1M 6976 was insured by the OP vide cover note no. 6800280  valid from 08.11.2012 to 07.12.2013. He further alleged that on 22.12.2012  due to short circuit in  the insured vehicle the vehicle along with consignment burnt completely and the driver of the insured truck lodged a report to this effect with the police at P.S. Manesar, Gurgoan vide D.D. no. 12 dated 22.12.2012.  Complainant immediately approached OP and a surveyor was  appointed by the OP who after surveying the insured vehicle informed that the vehicle is in complete loss but the complainant has been paid a meager amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- whereas the vehicle was insured for a total sum of Rs. 9,59,500/-. Complainant requested for making the balance payment but did not find any favour at the end of OP and he sent a legal notice to the OP accordingly but OP has failed to settle the genuine and bonafide claim of the complainant.  Hence  there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant prayed to direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 7,09,500/- towards balance of insurance value of the vehicle , Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for personal loss, harassment suffered by him along with cost of litigation.
2. In reply, OP admitted policy of insurance issued in favour of complainant.  OP submitted that a surveyor had examined the vehicle in detail part by part and assessed the amount of loss. OP alleged that at the time of the accident the driver of the insured vehicle had not effective driving license hence there is breach of the driver’s clause and the claim is excluded under the general exceptions of the policy issued to the complainant. OP further submitted that the claim was not at all payable and this position was explained to the complainant however on his further requests, OP considered the matter sympathetically and offered a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant as a compromise in full and final settlement to which the complainant readily accepted and submitted a claim form-cum-discharge-cum-satisfaction.  OP denied rest of the allegations and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement and denied the objections made by OP and supported his complaint.
4. In support of his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents i.e.  copy of the cover note (Ex CW-1/1) , copy of D.D. (Ex. CW-1/2) , copy of  legal notice  (Ex. CW-1/3) (colly) , Copy of driving license of driver (Ex. CW-1/4) and complaint is (Ex. CW1/5).
5.  In support of reply OP filed affidavit of Anirudh Devrat  ,  (Manager Legal)  along with documents i.e.  copy of   insurance policy (Annexure R-1), copy of surveyor’s report (Annexure R-2) , Copy of driving license (Annexure R-3) , copy of Registration Certificate, Permit of the Vehicle, Authorisation Certificate for N.P. (Goods) (Annexure R-4) (colly) , copy of claim-form-cum-discharge-cum-satisfaction voucher (Annexure R-5).
6. Both the parties filed their written arguments.
7. For the oral arguments none appeared for complainant since  14.12.2015. Counsel for the OP present. Heard arguments of the OP. As this is an old case pending since 2013 therefore written arguments of the complainant and   material on the record considered along with the arguments of the OP. In this case points to be considered are as under:-

1. Whether complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
3. Relief?

8. In reply, OP admitted that the vehicle was insured        w.e.f. 08.11.2012 to 07.12.2013 with the OP vide insurance policy (Annexure R-1) therefore complainant is a consumer.
9. Complainant admitted that he has prayed an amount of Rs.7,09,500/- whereas the vehicle was insured for a total sum  of Rs. 9,59,500/-. OP filed claim of the complainant form (Annexure R-5) along with the discharge voucher of the complainant. This discharge voucher clarify that he received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim , the liability has been decided by the complainant himself and it is admitted by the  complainant in his complaint.
10. Looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that when complainant has received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the full and final settlement of the claim therefore he cannot claim the insured amount on the ground that this amount is less than the insured amount.  Therefore, deficiency on the part of OP is not proved and after accepting full and final settlement of the claim complainant is not entitled to claim the balance insured amount hence this present complaint is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly.
11. Both the parties will bear their own cost.  Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced on………