BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.438 OF 2008 AGAINST C.D.NO.867 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM-III HYDERABAD
Between:
M/s Agarwal Foundries rep. by Mr.M.L.Agarwal
S/o late Sri G.R.Agarwal, aged about 72 years
Occ: Business, O/a Rama Towers, 2nd Floor,
5-4-83, M.G.Road, Secunderabad-003
Appellant/complainant
A N D
The Regional Branch Manager
Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Deccan Chambers, 4th Floor, 6-3-666/B,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad-082
Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant Sri G.Venkatswamy Goud
Counsel for the Respondent Ramachandra Reddy
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The complainant is the appellant. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the complainant opining on the premise of proper settlement of the claim by the respondent insurance company.
2. The appellant company had obtained motor vehicle insurance policy on 1.6.2006 and its motor vehicle bearing No.AP 28W 9004 met with an accident on 15.10.2006 at Medchal in R.R.District. The appellant company lodged its claim with the respondent insurance company for `58,112/-. The respondent insurance company had settled the claim of `47,270/- towards full and final satisfaction of the claim. The appellant company requested the respondent insurance company to pay the balance amount of `10,842/-.
3. The appellant company claimed at `3,000/- per day towards loss for the vehicle being repaired for a period of 25 days, `75,000/- and incidental charges of `13,500/-, the appellant company claimed Rs.88,500/- and submitted bill for `58,112/-.
4. The surveyor deputed by the respondent insurance company inspected the vehicle and submitted final repair worksheet on 9.11.2006 and he had estimated the total loss on labour and spare parts to the tune of `42,513.50. The respondent insurance company issued cheque on 6.3.2007 for `47,270/- and settled the amount towards full and final satisfaction of the claim of the appellant company. On 19.4.2007 the appellant company submitted a letter demanding `10,842/- for which the respondent insurance company had addressed a letter to the surveyor for clarification as to loss assessment. The surveyor had issued clarification stating that the appellant company had submitted estimate of repairs valued at `2,58,835/- and while carrying out the final survey he had taken into consideration the actual damages as suffered by the insured vehicle and any other parts which are not included in the original estimate would be at the responsibility of the appellant company. The surveyor had finalized the loss assessment with the consent and in the presence of the repairs. AS IMT conditions parts such as bumpers, head lights, madgards, tyres, painting etc., are not covered by the insurance policy. The complaint is not filed within the period of limitation.
5. M.L.Agarwal, representative of the complainant company has filed his affidavit and documents marked Exs.A1 to A24. On behalf of the respondent insurance company, Exs.B1 to B11 had been marked.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant company had filed appeal contending that the District Forum had followed the affidavit of the respondent insurance company and that the complainant company had not invoked the arbitration clause.
7. The points for consideration are
1) Whether the complainant company is entitled to the amount of Rs.10,842/- towards the claim amount and Rs.75,000/- towards damages as also Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for mental agony?
2) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurance company?
3) To what relief?
8. POINTS NO.1 AND 2 The complainant company taking insurance policy for the period 1.6.2006 till 1.5.2007 for its motor vehicle and the vehicle meeting with an accident on 15.10.2006 are not disputed. The appellant company submitted bills to the tune of `58,112/-. The respondent insurance company paid an amount of `47,270/-. The respondent insurance company had paid the amount `41,270/- through cheque on 6.3.2007. The appellant company had encashed the cheque without making any protest as to the claim amount. The appellant company had submitted a letter on 19.4.2007 demanding the balance amount of `10,842/-.
9. The appellant is a company and not an individual. The appellant being a company and having the knowledge of financial transactions and implications thereof, had encashed the cheque for Rs.42,270/- without raising any protest or objection and sometime thereafter it had chosen to demand the balance amount of `10,840/-. If the appellant company had any grievance in regard to the settlement of the claim relating to depreciation, age of the vehicle etc., it ought to have informed the respondent insurance company that the amount of `42,270/- sent through the cheque was not acceptable to it.
10. The appellant company having accepted the amount of `42,270/- towards full and final settlement of its claim, cannot turn round and demand for balance amount of `10,840/-. The settlement of the claim can be questioned only on the complainant alleging and proving fraud, coercion, misrepresentation etc. The appellant company has not made any of the aforementioned parameters as the basis and foundation for questioning the settlement of the claim even after encashing the cheque sent towards full and final settlement of its claim.
11. In “AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3027 United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Others” the Supreme Court held that the complainant can question the settlement of the claim after issuing discharge voucher for final settlement, on the grounds of fraud, coercion misrepresentation etc. The Apex Court held “The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, mis-representation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints”.
12. In the aforementioned circumstances and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant company is not entitled to question the settlement of the claim after receiving amount of `42,270/- towards the full and final satisfaction of its claim. The appeal is devoid of any substance and liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is confirmed. The costs of the proceedings are quantified at `3,000/-. For compliance within four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.03.11.2011
KMK*
