JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant / petitioner owned a truck which he had got insured with the respondent. The aforesaid truck having met with an accident, a claim was lodged by the petitioner / complainant with the respondent, for payment of Rs.1,70,000/- on the ground that he had spent the aforesaid amount on repair of the vehicle. The claim having not been paid, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking payment of the aforesaid amount. 2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent inter-alia on the ground that the payment of Rs.10,400/-, as per the assessment made by the surveyor had already been made to the complainant by way of a cheque but he had withheld the aforesaid information. 3. The District Forum directed the respondent to double the reimbursement of the amount recommended by the surveyor. It was also directed that if the amount of Rs.10,400/- had been paid to the complainant, the said amount would be deducted from the amount of compensation. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded as compensation to the complainant, in addition to cost of the litigation quantified at
Rs.3100/-. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner / complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the complainant / petitioner executed a voucher Ex.RW1/3 while receiving a sum of Rs.10,400/- from the respondent in full and final settlement. It was also noted that the aforesaid document was signed by the complainant. If the complainant / petitioner had already received the aforesaid amount, he ought to have disclosed the said information to the District Forum, in the complaint filed by him. The complaint therefore was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner / complainant had not approached the District Forum with clean hands, he having withheld the aforesaid material fact from the District Forum. Even on merits, if the complainant has received the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement of its claim, he is not entitled to recover any additional amount form the respondent. 5. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that no amount was received by the petitioner / complainant from the respondent, I find that no rejoinder was filed by him controverting the allegation of the respondent regarding the aforesaid payment. Moreover, even in the appeal against the order of the District Forum, a copy of which is available on page-37 of the paper book, it was not alleged that no such payment was received by the petitioner / complainant. In fact even the copy of the voucher Ex.RW1/3 has not been filed by the petitioner and there is no averment in the revision petition that the aforesaid document does not bear the signature of the petitioner / complainant. In any case, the petitioner / complainant has already been awarded twice the amount recommended by the surveyor in addition to compensation quantified at Rs.5,000/-. Having executed the discharge voucher, accepting the amount of Rs.10,400/- in full and final settlement of his claim, the petitioner / complainant is estopped from claiming any additional payment from the respondent. The view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. |
