DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No: 163/10.10.2008 Decided on : 22.04.2009 Satnam Singla S/o Sh. Nohar Chand, resident of Ward No.10, Near Trivani Mandir, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.M/s Sidhu Automobiles, Link Road, Mansa, through its Manager /Partner/Proprietor. 2.General Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Mall Road, Ludhiana. 3.Reliance Centre No.19, Registered office, Wal Chand Hira Chand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 through its M.D. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. M.L.Jindal,Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 exparte. Sh.Naval Goel, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Party No.3. Before: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Sh.Satnam Singla son of Sh. Nohar Chand, a resident of Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), against the opposite parties for payment of claim in the sum of Rs.3000/- and compensation in the sum of Rs.20,000/- on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: Contd........2 : 2 : 2. That the complainant has purchased a TVS Star Sports motorcycle bearing Registration No.PB31F-6276 from the Opposite Party No1 i.e. M/s Sidhu Automobiles, Link Road, Mansa. The complainant got insurance cover for his motorcycle bearing No.200702792747 for the period 15.3.2008 to 14.3.2009 from the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Ludhiana, through Opposite Party No.1. He paid premium in the sum of Rs.851/-. In the month of May, 2008, the motorcycle of the complainant met with an accident in which he sustained multiple injuries and damage was caused to his motorcycle about which he conveyed the intimation to Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1 and his complaint has been registered at Sr.No.508678 in the register maintained in the office of Opposite Party No.2, as informed by Opposite Party No.1. The complainant got his motorcycle repaired from Opposite Party No.1 on 1.6.2007, who issued estimate dated 1.6.2008 in the sum of Rs.3,000/- for repair of motorcycle and he issued bill No.1525 dated 1.6.2008 in the sum of Rs.2901/-, but by mistake, date of bill has been mentioned as 1.6.2007 instead of 1.6.2008. The complainant served notice dated 13.9.2008 upon the Opposite Parties No.1&2 through registered post, but inspite of this, his claim has neither been settled nor paid because of which he has been subjected to mental and physical agony, as such, he is liable, to be compensated, for the same and for payment of amount spent by him, for filing the instant complaint. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, Opposite Party No.1 filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, is not the 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act, as such, his complaint, is not maintainable; that complainant, has no cause of action, and locus standi, to file the complaint and his complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable, to be dismissed, with costs of Rs.50,000/-. On merits, it is admitted that motorcycle was Contd........3 : 3 : purchased from the answering opposite party, but it is denied for want of knowledge that Registration Number of the same is PB31F-6276, as such, complainant be put to strict proof. It is denied that any intimation regarding damage to his motorcycle was given to Opposite Party No.2 through the answering opposite party by the complainant. Rather it is averred that answering opposite party has no concern with the complaint. However, it is admitted that estimate in the sum of Rs.3,000/- was issued regarding damage caused to the motorcycle of the complainant and bill dated 1.6.2008 was issued in the sum of Rs.2901/- after affecting repair. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. The Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.11.2008. 5. The Opposite Party No.3 filed separate written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complainant, has no cause of action, and locus standi, to file the complaint; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true facts that payment of Rs.1702/- as full and final settlement of his claim, has already been made to him; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the complaint, as he has already received the said amount in full and final settlement without protest and has issued discharge voucher and receipt with free consent and that the complaint being false and vexatious is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that TVS motorcycle bearing Registration No.PB31F-6276 was got insured by the complainant from the answering opposite party vide Cover Note No. 200702792747 for the period 15.3.2008 to 14.3.2009. It is also admitted that complainant paid premium and sent intimation regarding damage caused to the motorcycle in the accident on 26.5.2008 after which extent of damage to his motorcycle was assessed by the Surveyor appointed by Contd........4 : 4 : the opposite party in the sum of Rs.1702/- which he received as full and final settlement of his claim, but thereafter he filed the instant complaint in connivance with the Opposite Party No.1 after forging documents. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 6. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the complainant, tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ext.C-1, and copies of documents Ext.C-2 and C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties tendered in evidence affidavits and copy of documents Ext.OP-1 to OP-5 and closed evidence. 7. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. M.L.Jindal,Advocate has submitted that the motorcycle of the complainant met with an accident in the month of May, 2008, in which he sustained multiple injuries and damages was also caused to his motorcycle, but despite conveyance of intimation and service of legal notice upon the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, his claim has neither been settled nor paid, due to which, he has been subjected to mental and physical harassment, as such, he is liable, to be compensated, for the same and for payment of amount spent by him, for filing the instant complaint. 9. At the outset, Sh.Naval Goel, Advocate, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 has drawn our attention to documents placed on file showing that he has received a sum of Rs.1702/- as full and final settlement of the claim from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 without protest. Learned counsel has argued that payment has been made to the complainant strictly as per the report of the Surveyor, who is the best person, whose report cannot be brushed aside by the Forum unless there is some patent irregularity or illegality, as such, he is estopped from filing Contd........5 : 5 : the complaint re-agitating the same controversy on the basis of forged documents secured by him in connivance with Opposite Party No.1. Learned counsel has argued that the complainant has not examined any expert from his own side whereas the answering opposite party has alleged connivance between him and the Opposite party No.1, who is admittedly dealer of manufacturing Company. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2008(I) CLT 302 Gian Chand Gupta versus National Insurance Company wherein loss or damage was paid to the complainant by the Insurance Company relying upon the report of the Surveyor on account of which it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that payment received by the complainant is not open to challenge. Learned counsel has further relied upon 2008 (II) CLT (NC) 379 National Insurance Company Ltd versus Krishna Rice Mills wherein the the complainant at no stage alleged either coercion or duress in acceptance of the amount of claim on account of which it was held that he will not be entitled for any payment other than that he has already accepted in full and final settlement of the insurance claim. Learned counsel argued that in view of the facts and proposition of law laid down in these authorities, the complaint, being abuse of process of court deserves to be dismissed with costs. 10. Sh.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has submitted that no relief has been sought by the complainant against his client, as such, his complaint is liable to be dismissed against Opposite party No.1. 11. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a TVS Star Sports motorcycle bearing Registration No.PB31F-6276 from the Opposite Party No1 and got insurance policy from the Opposite Party No.2 for his motorcycle bearing Cover Note No. 200702792747 for the period 15.3.2008 to 14.3.2009 through Opposite Party No.1. There is no dispute that he paid premium in the sum of Rs.851/-. In the month of May, 2008, Contd........6 : 6 : the motorcycle of the complainant met with an accident in which he sustained multiple injuries and damage was caused to his motorcycle. The complainant has not claimed any relief against Opposite Party No.1 in the instant complaint. It appears that he has been impleaded as party to the complaint as proper party because of issuance of estimate and bill after repair about the amount required to be spent to effect repairs to his motorcycle and issuance of bills, as such, complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is bound to fail. 12. The plea of remaining contesting opposite parties is that extent of damage to the motorcycle was assessed by the Surveyor appointed by him in the sum of Rs.1702/- after receipt of intimation about accident from the complainant. The Opposite Party No.3 has also placed on record Satisfaction Voucher Ext.OP-5 after receiving the sum of Rs.1702/- as full and final settlement of his claim . The complainant has neither denied the execution of the said document in the complaint, nor he has alleged that his signatures were obtained by the opposite party or its investigator or surveyor on some other pretext. He has also not alleged execution of the document by coercion or duress and no attempt has been made by him to get his signatures, affixed on that document, compared by any handwriting expert with his own specimen signatures. The perusal of the document reveals that some columns in the voucher have been left blank in the receipt which has been tendered as part thereof. The signatures of the complainant are not affixed on revenue stamp and space meant for the purpose. The Opposite Party No.3 has taken a specific objection in the written version regarding execution of documents and payment of Rs.1702/- to the complainant as per report of the surveyor, but no rejoinder has been filed by him to rebut these facts introduced first time in the written version by them. It is well settled that complainant has to succeed by standing on his own leg and not on the basis of any weakness in the case of the opponent. Therefore, we are unable to accede to the Contd........7 : 7 : submissions made by the counsel for the complainant that documents referred to above are forged. It may not be out of place to mention here, that as per the admitted facts, estimate has been issued in the sum of Rs.3,000/- by Opposite party No.1 for repair of motorcycle of the complainant, but the bill Ext.C-2 has been issued in the sum of Rs.2901/-. There is also no cogent explanation as to why wrong date of issuance of bill has been mentioned by the Opposite party No.1. As such, on the face of the above said facts, the plea of the Opposite party No.3 cannot be rejected, especially when connivance, has been alleged between the complainant and the Opposite party No.1, against whom no relief has been sought, although he has been associated as party to the complaint. 13. In the light of the ratio of judgments delivered in the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the Opposite party No.3, we have come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties No.2 and 3 in settlement of his claim, which may invite indulgence of this Forum, as sought by the complainant through the instant complaint, after receiving the amount of Rs.1702/-, with free consent without lodging protest and has affixed his signatures on the discharge voucher and receipt, without any coercion and duress. 14. Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties to bear their own costs. 15. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 22.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
