Haryana

StateCommission

A/78/2016

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DILBAGH SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

D.C.KUMAR

18 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        78  of 2016

Date of Institution:       27.01.2016

Date of Decision :        18.08.2016

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Gohana through Shri S.P. Singh, Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, LIC Building II Floor, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.  

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Dilbag Singh s/o Sh. Dayanand, Proprietor M/s Mahalaxmi Finance Company Meham Road, Gohana, District Sonipat.  

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                  

Argued by:          Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Sajjan Singh Malik, Advocate proxy for Shri Mandeep Sheokand, counsel for respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

        The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated November 27^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Dilbag Singh-complainant/respondent, seeking compensation with respect to his vehicle which was damaged in an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy, was accepted. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.one lac fifty thousand to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of accident till its realization and further to pay Rs.ten thousand for rendering deficient services, for harassment and also to pay Rs.five thousand under the head of litigation expenses.”

2.                The respondent-complainant, got his Toyota Fortuner vehicle bearing registration No.HR-11B-0001, insured with the Insurance Company for the period December 21^st, 2012 to December 20^th, 2013, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit R-14 for Rs.14.00 lacs. The vehicle met with an accident on November 24^th, 2013 and was damaged. First Information Report (FIR) No.316 (Annexure P-10) was lodged in Police Station Gohana Sadar. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle and submitted report. The Insurance Company settled the claim at Rs.4,95,367/-. The complainant received the amount of Rs.4,95,367/-in full and final settlement of his claim by executing Discharge Voucher (Exhibit R-2).

3.                After receiving the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,95,367/- in full and final settlement of his claim, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he incurred Rs.8,44,471/- on the repair of his vehicle and thus he was entitled to Rs.8,44,471/- instead of Rs.4,95,367/-.

4.                The question for consideration is whether the complainant had received the amount of Rs.4,95,367/- in full and final settlement of his claim or not?

5.                Indisputably, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.4,95,367/- from the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of his claim.  He signed the Discharge Voucher (Exhibit R-2).

6.                It was not the case of the complainant that execution of the aforesaid Discharge Voucher (Exhibit R-2) 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.4,95,367/-, rather, the amount was received by him with free consent. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

10.              For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 18.08.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL