DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 142 of 7.4.2016
Decided on: 28.6.2017
Rashpal Singh, aged about 38 years son of Hakam Singh, resident of village Hajipur , Sub Tehsil Dudhan Sadhan, Tehsil and District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Ground Floor, Seetal Complex, 5-C/1, near CMO Complex, Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.N.S.Sarwara,Adv.counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta,Adv.counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Complainant, Rashpal Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay the balance amount, spent for the repair of the vehicle.
- To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of the complaint and
- To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief , the case of the complainant is that he being the registered owner of truck/heavy goods vehicle, make Tata-3118, bearing registration No.PB-11-BK-9757, got the same insured with the OP, vide policy bearing No.1-38C 7ZP8 P400# 90402760, for the period from 27.12.2014 to 26.12.2015.The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.7.2015, in the area of P.S.Nangal, District Roop Nagar and was badly damaged. The complainant informed the OP about the incidence. The OP deputed Mr.Chander Shekhar, surveyor, who visited the spot and assessed the loss. After inspecting the vehicle, the surveyor told the complainant to get the damaged vehicle repaired of his own and thereafter submit the claim alongwith bills. The complainant got the vehicle repaired and spent more than Rs.7,00,000/-on the repair of the said vehicle, which included purchase of parts and labour charges etc. Thereafter, he submitted the original bills alongwith other documents with the OP for payment of the amount spent by him on the repair of the damaged vehicle. The OP transferred, an amount of Rs.2,68,000/-only, in the account of the complainant and failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,32,000/-.The vehicle remained parked in the workshop, for about two months, the same could not be plied by the complainant on road and has suffered loss of Rs.40,000/- per month, to be earned by him, by way of plying the said vehicle. He requested the OP to pay the remaining amount but the OP did not pay any heed to his requests. The act and conduct of the OP amounted to deficiency in service, for which he has been suffering from mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant obtained the insurance policy bearing No. 90402760, covering the vehicle having registration No.PB-11-BK-9775 w.e.f.27.12.2014 to 26.12.2015. It is averred that the complainant intimated the OP with regard to the loss of the vehicle on 12.7.2015. Mr.Chander Shekhar, IRDA approved, surveyor & loss assessor was appointed to assess the loss, who visited the spot and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,68,000/-. It is further averred that as per settlement arrived at between the complainant and the OP, it paid an amount of Rs.2,68,000/-towards full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant also gave consent in writing on 16.9.2015 to this effect and now he is estopped from claiming anything from the OP. On merits, after reiterating the aforesaid facts, and denying all other averments in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C28 ad closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sanket Gupta, Vice President, Iffco Tokio GIC alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had obtained an insurance policy for the vehicle in question for the period from 27.12.2014 to 26.12.2015.The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.7.2015. As per the complainant he got the said vehicle repaired and spent more than Rs.7,00,000/- on its repair.He submitted the original bills with the OP for claim. However, the OP paid him an amount of Rs.2,68,000/- only. It is prayed by the complainant that OP may be directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,32,000/-to him.
7. The ld. counsel for the OP has vehemently argued that on receipt of the claim , the same was accessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.2,68,000/-. The complainant agreed to receive the said amount as full and final settlement of his claim. Accordingly the OP paid the said amount to the complainant and the complaint filed by the complainant may kindly be dismissed being devoid of merit.
8. From the report of the surveyor, it is apparent that the surveyor has accessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,68,000/-.From the perusal of consent letter, Ex.OP1, which was duly signed by the complainant, it is evident that the complainant agreed to accept the amount accessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor. It may be stated that once the complainant had agreed to accept the amount from the Insurance company in full and final discharge of his claim and the OP had already paid the settled amount of Rs.2,68,000/- to him, then the complainant has no occasion to agitate the matter, and the complaint filed qua is liable to be dismissed. Our view is supported by the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of “Kundan Rice Mill Limited Versus United India Insurnace Co. Ltd.” MANU/CF/0571/2015 , wherein it has been held that “complainant executed a settlement voucher, agreeing to accept amount from insurance company in full and final discharge of its claim- Acceptance of payment by complainant in full and final settlement of its claim shall constitute a valid and binding contract between parties …..…….”
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:28.6.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
