O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against Opposite party [hereinafter called as Op) in brief is that, he is an absolute owner of a lorry which was insured with the OP from 18-1-2007 to 17-1-2008. It was a goods carrying vehicle. That the lorry met with an accident on 14-1-2008 at about 5.30 AM and he had giving a complaint in this regard to Bennergatta police who had registered a complaint. Then he got the damage of the lorry assessed as Rs.3,25,539/-. That after approval of OP, he got repaired his lorry amounting to Rs.1,51,938/-. He produced all the documents and requested for refund of that repaired charges and also towing charges of Rs.6,000/-. But OP has only paid Rs.1,03,000/- towards entire repairs and withheld Rs.70,938/-. That repair charges was admitted earlier assessed at Rs.3,25,539/- but OP had restricted it the claim. That OP has not paid Rs.70,938/- from out of Rs.1,51,938/- and Rs.6,000/- and therefore has prayed for a direction to pay balance repair charges of Rs.70,938/- with interest and compensation for mental agony and towards loss of earnings. <br /> <br /> 2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle is a commercial goods vehicle and the complaint is not maintainable. OP admitted the validity of insurance policy as on date of the accident and has stated that the surveyor was appointed who inspected the damaged vehicle and estimated repair charges at Rs.73,035/- after depreciation and by adding towing charges and they handling charges, less salvage value and policy excess recommended of Rs.1,03,000/- which was paid through cheques on 12-3-2008 to the complainant towards full and final settlement but the complainant has now come up with the complaint which is not maintainable. That the complainant after receiving that full settlement signed to the claim disbursement voucher and therefore when the final settlement had taken place, thus the complaint cannot be maintained and has prayed for dismissal of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Assistant Manager of OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of FIR, copy of police statement, copy of estimation of damages and copy of bills. OP has produced copy of insurance policy, motor claim form, report of surveyor and claim disbursement voucher. The counsel for both the parties have filed written arguments reiterating what they have stated in the affidavit evidence. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that OP has caused deficiency in his service in not reimbursing the total estimated repair charges?<br /> 2. Whether OP proves that the complainant has received Rs.1,03,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claim and given discharge voucher?<br /> 3. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the negative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: In the affirmative <br /> 3. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1 & 2: As seen from the contentions of the parties, we find no dispute between them with regard to the owner ship of the lorry. That the lorry was insured with the OP and had effective insurance policy as on the date of accident and that lorry met with an accident suffering certain damage. The complainant has contended as if he got the damage estimated at Rs.3,23,539/-. But OP had given approval for repair amounting to Rs.1,51,938/-. It is further not in dispute that the complainant agreed to the approval of OP for paying repair charges amounting to Rs.1,51,938/- and he got the vehicle repaired by paying so much of amount and that OP has only paid Rs.1,03,000/- as against that Rs.1,51,938/-. <br /> <br /> 7. OP without disputing that he has given approval for getting repair done amounting to Rs.1,51,938/- but by relying upon the report of the surveyor allowed depreciation of certain damaged parts, cost of salvage and policy excess determined the amount payable to the complainant as Rs.1,03,000/- and stated have to paid that amount to the complainant through a cheque on 12-3-2008. The complainant admitting receipt of that amount through a cheque on 12-3-2008 signed the claim disbursement voucher. It is found further the complainant who received cheque for Rs.1,03,000/- on 12-3-2008 did not rise his voice at any stage in any form either informing OP that the amount paid by OP to him is inadequate or by making further demand with the OP. The complainant after having kept quite for more than 1 ½ years has come up with the complaint alleging that OP has not paid full repair charges. <br /> <br /> 8. The contention of OP that surveyor after deduction of depreciation, policy excess and cost of salvage, determined net payable amount as at Rs.1,03,000/- is not questioned by the complainant. It is not the contention of the complainant that he did not receive salvage and that salvage was not worth anything. Even in the complaint also the complainant has not questioned the correctness of the deduction made by surveyor in determining the amount payable to the complainant. Therefore the complainant without disputing those deductions allowed by surveyor cannot demand for payment of entire money. Nextly when the complainant received cheques for Rs.1,03,000/- on 12-3-2008 he did not receive it by any protest or as part payment. That after receipt of that amount on 12-3-2008 he did not raise his voice until this complaint is filed on 30-12-2009. Thus a question would arise is the complainant had not agreed for payment of Rs.1,03,000/- would have kept quite for more than 1 ½ years without agitating with the OP for payment of balance amount. Therefore if the complainant was not satisfied with the payment received he could have definitely taken up the issue with the OP but did not do so. These facts and his silence for more than 1 ½ years prove that because of his acceptance of cheques for Rs.1,03,000/- was towards his full satisfaction and not for part payment. <br /> <br /> 9. As could be seen from the complaint, the complainant in the first instance on his own got the damage estimated at Rs.3,25,539/- but on interference of OP it was restricted Rs.1,51,938/-. Thereafter he got the lorry repaired limiting to certain repairs and the lorry is running smoothly and is in good condition. As the complainant has not complained anything about it therefore the earlier estimation of the complainant proves as exorbitant, un-immaginary and was misleading which reflect on the motive of the complainant. Therefore considering all these aspects in totality and claim disbursement endorsement and conduct of the complainant for more than 1 ½ years after receipt of repair charges prove that the claim of the complainant is not bonafide and he has not proved any deficiency in the service of OP and complaint is liable to be dismissed with the result, we answer Point No-1 in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed.<br />