Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1773/2009

Rashpal Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2020

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.1773/2009

 

Sh. Rashpal Aggarwal,

734, 3^rd Floor, Guru Aptts.,

Plot No.9, Sec.14,

Rohini, Delhi.

                               ….Complainant

Vs.

 

M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

C-31/32, 1^st  Floor,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-01.

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 4CAB 5594(Honda City car).  The said vehicle was insured with OP under the policy No.09-09-1104-1801-00008843 for the period from 3.7.2008 to midnight of 2.7.2009.  Unfortunately, on 7.10.2008, the said vehicle met with an accident and got damaged.  The complainant firstly approached M/s J.S. Motors at Hosiharpur but  it failed to repair the vehicle  and as such, he  towed the vehicle to the workshop of  M/s Prestiage Honda, Lali Motors Ltd., Jalandhar(Punjab)  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.  After continuous persuasion OP accepted the liabilities of Rs.1,14,949/- and forced the complainant to pay Rs.90,051/- despite the facts that the vehicle was insured under a cashless policy.  The arbitrary deduction in the claim by the OP amounts to deficiency in services on its part, 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 had altered vehicle to run on LPG without reporting the change in fuel system and getting approval from the Registering Authority therebyrendering the contract of Insurance voidable.  The OP instead of repudiating the claim for the said violation of law offered to settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis.  The complainant accepted the offer and voluntary made the statement of acceptance of Non-Standard Settlement of claim in the presence of witness, as such, a sum of Rs.1,14,949/- was settled as cashless claim and paid to the complainant.    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.1,14,949/- was directly paid to the repairer.  He further stated that he is entitled for relief claimed. 

6.     It is argued on behalf of OP that the payment of Rs.1,14,949/- was directly paid to the repairer on behalf of complainant  in full and final settlement claim against consent freely and voluntarily executed by the complainant in the presence of witness, 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.1,14,949/-  paid to the repairer  as well as the satisfaction consent letter signed by the complainant against the payment made to the repairer.  The bare perusal of the satisfaction letter dt. 19.1.2019 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.1,14,949/-. In the contents of the letter dt. 19.1.2009,  the complainant had mentioned as under:

“I have agreed to accept a sum of Rs.1,14,949/-  less policy excess of Rs.500/- as mutually negotiated full and final settlement on Non-Standard Basis. I undertake that I will never raise any issue or litigation on this mode of mutually negotiated settlement.  My insurer are not liable for any other expenses regarding the above claim. This consent letter has been voluntarily given and I am aware that the same is a condition precedent in the mutually mode of settlement of this claim”.

 

8.     Perusal of the above letter makes it clear that the complainant had signed the above letter without any coercion and undue influence. The complainant is unable to prove that he signed the letter dt. 19.1.2009 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 letter in his free will and accepted the amount of Rs.1,14,949/- 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 07/01/2020.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                       (H M VYAS)

                   MEMBER                                                    MEMBER