Delhi

New Delhi

CC/653/2016

Rajesh Kumar Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Liberty Videocon GIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.653/2016

 

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gautam,

S/o Sh. Hukum Singh,

R/o C-29, Street No.4,

Opp. Durga Mandir,

Jagatpuri Extension,

Delhi-110093.

                               ….Complainant

Vs.

 

M/s Liberty Videocon GIC Ltd.,

Through its Director/Manager/AR,

Front Block of 2^nd Floor,

ALPS Building. 56,

Janpath, , New Delhi-01.

 

Registered & Corporate Office at:

10^th Floor, Tower-A,

Peninsula Business Park,

Ganpatrao Kadam Marge,

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.

 Opposite Party

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of car bearing registration No. DL ICU 7167(Renault-Kwid RXT).  The said vehicle was insured with OP under the policy No.ECN201619023151000940 for the period from 19.2.2016 to midnight of 18.2.2017.  Unfortunately, said vehicle started creating problems due to which the same has to be got repaired.  The complainant approached the authorized service centre and the vehicle  was towed to the workshop for repairing.   The   complainant has already informed OP Insurance Co. and lodged his claim in respect of the cost of the repairs of car in question along with all the relevant papers.  But OP was avoiding to make the payment of claim of the complainant  in respect of above mentioned car which was insured with it by making false, frivolous and baseless grounds. The complainant sent a legal notice dt. 26.7.2016 to OP  but OP neither replied nor complied the same, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP filed its written statement in which OP has pleaded that the there is no deficiency in service on its part.  OP has  stated that the complainant has intentionally withheld relevant information that Rs.21,463/- was received from the OP Insurance Co. by repairer directly on behalf of complainant in full and final settlement against a discharge voucher freely and voluntarily executed both by the complainant. The repairer,  therefore, no further cause of action survive against  the OP.  It is further submitted that  on receipt of intimation of the loss, OP appointed surveyor, Mr. Pankaj Kalra, who inspected the subject vehicle minutely and observed that the vehicle continued to be driven in damaged condition without necessary repairs after the lubricant got leaked. This is breach of Condition No.4 of the insurance terms and conditions of the policy.   It is stated that  the amount of Rs.21,051/- was directly paid to the repairer on 2.9.2016 after deduction of Rs.420/- towards TDS for garage.  Hence, the complainant in not entitled for the relief claim and further prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

3.     Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits.

4.     We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission made on behalf of parties. 

5.     It is argued on behalf of complainant that his claim was arbitrary settled by the OP and the payment of Rs.21,051/- was directly paid to the repairer on 2.9.2016.  He further stated that he is entitled for relief claimed. 

6.     It is argued on behalf of OP that the payment of Rs.21,051/- was directly paid to the repairer on 2.9.2016 on behalf of complainant  in full and final settlement claim against discharge voucher freely and voluntarily executed both by the complainant and repairer, hence, nothing left as claimed by the complainant.  Moreover, the insured had not lodged any protest on receipt of the amount, the present complaint is after thought and was filed with ulterior motive and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

7.     Some facts are not denied by the parties such as the policy documents, repairing in question, payment for a sum of Rs.21,051/- paid to the repairer  as well as the satisfaction voucher signed by the complainant against the payment made to the repairer.  The bare perusal of the satisfaction voucher dt. 31.8.2016 signed by the complainant in favour of OP Insurance Co. makes it clear that the complainant has settled his claim with OP Insurance Co. for a sum of Rs.21,051/-. In the contents of the satisfaction voucher the complainant had mentioned that the settlement of this claim  shall be constituted as complete full and final discharge of liability of the Co. under the policy and I/We shall have no further claim arising out of the same incident.

8.     Perusal of the satisfaction voucher makes it clear that the complainant had signed the above discharge voucher without any coercion and undue influence. The complainant is unable to prove that he signed the discharge voucher in compulsion or when he was in need of money or any influence was given by the OP to him, therefore, it can safely be held that the complainant signed the discharge voucher in his free will and accepted the amount of Rs.21,051/- from the OP in full and final satisfaction of his claim. Reliance is placed on judgement of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Vs. M/s Nissan Electronics Ltd. decided on 3.7.2014. The complainant after receiving  and accepting the payment  had lost his character as a consumer, hence he is not entitled to receive any further amount from OP.

9.     A similar view was taken by Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Jind V/s IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager Revision Petition No. 4713 of 2012  wherein it was held that:-

The petitioner cannot be allowed to accept the offer of the respondent only in part which suited their convenience and reject the condition subject to which offer was made.

 

10.    In view of the aforesaid judgment and the documents placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant by his own conduct has forfeited his right to plead that he had not accepted the offer/payment  in full and final settlement of his claim against the OP.  We find no merits in the present complaint.  The same is hereby dismissed.

 

A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 03/10/2019.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                       (H M VYAS)

           MEMBER                                                    MEMBER