THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

CC. No. 119/2008

Monday, the 16^th day of November, 2009.

Petitioner : Jaison K. Job,

Shallwin Villa,

Opposite T.M.R.D,

Pakkil P.O, Kottayam.

(By Adv. Vidya S. Das)

Opposite parties : 1) General Manager,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Claims,

Zenith House, 2^nd Floor,

Keshav Rao Khade Marg, Mumbai.

2. The Divisional Manager,

ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,

Room No. 1, Muthoot Crown Plaza,

T.B Road, Kottayam.

O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioner’s is as follows:

The petitioner availed a policy for his vehicle bearing No. KL 7 AL-1200 Skoda Car with vide policy No. 3001/50910023/00/000 from the first opposite party, Insurance Company. Second opposite party is the Branch office of the first opposite party. On 23..7..2007 at about 9 P.M when the petitioner was traveling in the car, through MC Road at Kodimatha, the vehicle was stopped in the queue of the vehicle due to heavy flood and further movement was obstructed. Due to the heavy flood damages were caused to the vehicle and the petitioner expended Rs. 1,47,672/- for repairing the damages caused to his vehicle. Petitioner submitted all the relevant bills and claim to the opposite party. Opposite party accepting the claim of the petitioner issued a Cheque to

-2-

the petitioner and petitioner received an amount of Rs. 15,921/- with protest. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in allowing part of the claim amount is a clear deficiency in service. So, petitioner prays for a direction to the first and second opposite parties to honour the entire claim amount and also the petitioner claims cost of the complaint.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party, petitioner has not spent Rs. 1,47,672/- for the repairing of the car. An IRDA licensed surveyor was appointed for assessing the damages of the vehicle. Surveyor has assessed Rs. 15,921/- after calculating its depreciation, salvage value and policy excess as per the terms and conditions of policy. Petitioner received an amount of Rs. 15,921/- towards full satisfaction. So, opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Relief and costs.

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A6 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

Opposite party produced a letter issued by the opposite party to the petitioner Dtd: 2..11..2007. Said document is marked as Ext. B1. In Ext. B1 opposite party offered the

-3-

claim amount of Rs. 15,921/- towards full and final settlement of the claim. Petitioner accepted the amount of Rs. 15,921/- in full satisfaction. Opposite party has a contention that since the amount was received by the petitioner and had given sign and accepted amount in full and final settlement of the claim without any protest or any objection. Petitioner is estopped from making a claim as stated in the petition. Hon’ble National Commission in Sidra Rama Thombare Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Reported in 2009 CTJ page No. 158) stated that in case a full and final settlement. If discharge voucher is executed voluntarily and protest not attached and no objection raised petitioner cannot claim any further amount. Otherwise petitioner shall prove that discharge vouchers were executed under fraud, undue influence. Even though the petitioner in his petition alleged that amount were accepted under protest he has not produced any peice of evidence to prove the same. So, in our view since the amount was accepted by the petitioner as full and final settlement we cannot fasten any liability against the insurance company over and above liabilities accepted by the petitioner. So, in our view no deficiency in service can be attributed against the insurance company. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is dismissed.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16^th day of November, 2009.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-

-4-

APPENDIX

Documents for the Petitioner:

Ext. A1: Photo copy of Insurance Policy certificate.

Ext. A2: Photo copy of Cheque Dtd: 29..10..2007

Ext. A3 series Bill (7 Nos.)

Ext. A4: Office copy of the lawyers notice

Ext. A5: Copy of Acknowledgement card

Ext. A6: Postal receipt

Documents for the Opposite party:

Ext. B1: Letter Dtd: 2..11..2007 issued by the opposite party to the petitioner.

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Despatched on / Received on

amp/ 5 cs.