Haryana

StateCommission

A/1021/2015

SATISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

10 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.1021 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution:26.11.2015

                                      Date of Decision: 14.03.2017

 

Satish Kumar through his legal heirs namely (1) Deepak S/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar aged 20 years, (2) Smt. Bhateri widow of Late Satish Kumar S/o Hansraj, (3) Boby S/o Late Satish Kumar aged 18 years, (4) Bhagirathi mother of Late Satish Kumar and widow of Hansraj all residents of village Kota-Khandewla, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat (Haryana).

                                                …Appellants

 

                                      Versus

 

1.      HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., having its office at 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai through its Manager having office at Gurgaon (Haryana).

2.      Umardeen, Insurance Agent (Vide agent promotion code No.RABG0249), L.I.G. 100 Housing Board, Sohna Road, Tauru, District Mewat (Haryana).

                                      …Respondents

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:     None for the appellants.

Mr.Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

 

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

1.      It was alleged by the complainant that he got his truck insured from OP and insurance policy was effective from 21.04.2009. On 01.06.2009 truck met with an accident and he spent Rs.1,70,000/- on its repairs, but, OPs did not pay the same. Hence, this complaint.

2.      OP No.1 filed reply because OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

3.      It was alleged by insurance company that Rs.10,400/- were already received by complainant vide cheque No.808352 as full and final settlement. Thereafter, he was not entitled for any compensation. Objections about concealment of true facts, non joinder of necessary parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 19.08.2015.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.      Nobody has appeared on behalf of appellant/complainant. Previously also nobody appeared on behalf of appellant for consecutive three dates. This appeal is pending since the year, 2015. In these circumstances arguments of counsel for respondent No.1 are heard.

7.      From the perusal of motor loss voucher Ex.RW1/3 it is clear that  complainant received Rs.10,400/- as full and final settlement. This document is bearing signatures of insured. When once compensation is received as full and final settlement complainants cannot ask for more compensation. Findings of learned District form are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

March 14^th, 2017                  Urvashi Agnihotri                 R.K. Bishnoi

                                                  Member                                Judicial Member

                                                 Addl. Bench                         Addl. Bench

 

R.K