DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

M/s Allena Auto Industries (P) Ltd., C-116, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, District Mohali (Punjab), through its authorized signatory.

                   ---- Complainant

V E R S U S

1.       HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, through its Director, Office at 6^th Floor, Leela Birner Park, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai.

2.       Branch Head, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 124-125, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:      SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU             MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Proxy Counsel for

Sh. Para Money Goyal, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant Company had insured its Mahindra Maxx Pick-up from OP-Insurance Company vide Policy No. VG00093765000100 by paying a premium of Rs.8,581/-, valid from 18.03.2010 to 17.03.2011, having a sum insured of Rs.1,49,704/- (Policy document Annexure C-1). Unfortunately, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 19.08.2010 at Pipli near Kurukshetra and was badly damaged. Intimation of the same was immediately given to the Opposite Parties. Soon thereafter, a Surveyor was appointed, who was of the view that the vehicle, in question, was a total loss, and further, recommended the repairs from M/s Goel Motors (P) Ltd.  Accordingly, the vehicle was towed to M/s Goel Motors (P) Ltd. (Receipt Annexure C-2A). Further, Complainant company promptly submitted all the necessary documents required for settlement of claim, filled the claim form giving all particulars of insurance, accident, bills issued by M/s Goel Motors (P) Ltd. to the tune of Rs.63,800/- and the detail of the driver of the vehicle etc. (Copy of bill Annexure C-2). However, surprisingly, despite the loss being assessed to be a total loss by the Surveyor, the Opposite Parties silently handed over a draft of Rs.22,152/- dated 7.12.2010 (Annexure C-4), illegally retaining an amount of which 41,648/-, against which the Complainant company also lodged a protest, whereafter the Opposite Parties assured to re-open the claim again (Copies of e-mails are at Annexure C-5 to C-15). Finally, when nothing positive could come out and all the requests of the Complainant company had been put to deaf ears, a notice dated 10.6.2011 was sent to the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-16), but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

                   The complaint of the Complainant is not duly verified, but is supported by a detailed affidavit of Sh. Arvind Kumar, Authorized Signatory of M/s Allena Auto Industries (P) Limited.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.                Opposite Parties in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that immediately upon the information of the accident Sunil Diwan & Co. was appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss. It is denied that the vehicle sustained major damages in the accident. It is admitted that the vehicle was towed to M/s Goel Motor for its repairs. The surveyor inspected the jeep and gave his report dated 17.10.2010 in view of the terms and conditions of the policy (Report of the Surveyor and the terms & conditions of the Policy are at Annexure R-1 & R-2).  The Complainant was paid a cheque for a sum of Rs.22,152/- which was accepted by the Complainant without any protest. The filing of the complaint is an afterthought and with a motive to harass the answering Opposite Parties. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

                   The reply of Opposite Parties is not duly verified, but is supported by a detailed affidavit of Mr. Praman Preet Singh Gujral, Claims Manager (Legal), HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Limited.

4.                Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

5.                The present complaint of the Complainant has been filed on the ground that the claim submitted by it on account of loss suffered due to the accident of the vehicle which is registered in its name. The Complainant had got the vehicle insured from the Opposite Parties vide Policy No. VG00093765000100 by paying a premium of Rs.8,581/-, valid from 18.03.2010 to 17.03.2011, having a sum insured of Rs.1,49,704/- vide Annexure C-1. 

6.                After the due intimation, a spot survey was conducted and thereafter, the vehicle in question was removed to workshop for necessary repairs. After the repairs, the vehicle was inspected by the Surveyor, and a surveyor’s report was prepared (Annexure R-1 Pg.14), assessing the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.28,000/- approx. (Rs.20,570.95 + Rs.7,500.40).  The Opposite Parties claims to have disbursed an amount of Rs.22,152/- vide Cheque No. 012439, dated 7.12.2010. This fact is established from Annexure C-4, wherein the Complainant has itself admitted to its receipts, but at the same time, had claimed that the same was non-acceptable to it. However, inadvertently, the cheque was presented with its Banker and was duly encashed. The Complainant claims that it reserved its rights to contest the award of the amount disbursed by the Insurance Company and on such reason, has preferred the present complaint.  

7.                We have minutely and thoroughly gone through Annexure C-4 which is the cover letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant, intimating it about the offer of full & final settlement of its claim, by sending the cheque of Rs.22,152/-, along with this letter. The details of the covering letter clearly mentions as under:-

“In the event enclosed Cheque/ Draft is deposited in your Bank Account, it will be understood that you have accepted the amount and given your discharge for the same in full and final settlement of the amount due to you.

If the enclosed amount is not acceptable to you, please Do Not deposit the Cheque/ Draft into your Bank Account and return the same to HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400059, along with a letter giving reason for non-acceptance.”

                   The aforesaid condition giving option to the Complainant about the acceptance as well as non acceptance of the offer by it clears all doubts about the bonafide of the claim that the Complainant had raised through the present complaint.  To our mind, the Complainant is a business enterprise, which is well versed with the language of the draft of any office communication. Hence, after the receipt of this letter, having preferred to present the Cheque to its Banker for encashment, had disqualified the Complainant to raise any objection with regard to contest its claim any further. Hence, we feel that the Complainant, while presenting the cheque, in question, to its Banker, had expressed its acceptance, and had also automatically given its consent, to the discharge of the liabilities of the Opposite Parties, for the same, in full and final settlement of its claim.

8.                In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.         

9.                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28^th February, 2013.                                                                                         

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER