Haryana

StateCommission

A/447/2016

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARENDER KUMAR JOSHI - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL DHAMIJA

01 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        447 of 2016

Date of Institution:       19.05.2016

Date of Decision :        01.03.2017

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Balmer Lawrie House No.628, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600018 through its Authorized Signatory Shri Amit Chawla, Regional Office, SCO 145-146, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Nagar, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Narender Kumar Joshi son of Sh. Kanhaya Lal, resident of Chowk Mohalla, Lala Wala Kuan, Ward No.7, Mahendergarh, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s Carnation Auto India Private Limited, Plot No.288A, Udhyog Vihar, Phase 4, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Works Manager/Secretary.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                            

Argued by:          Shri Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Abhineet Taneja, Advocate for respondent-complainant.

(Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 22^nd July, 2016)

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Reliance General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.2 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated March 28^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Narender Kumar Joshi-complainant was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.1,36,665/- alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      Vehicle bearing registration No.HR66-5783 owned by the complainant met with an accident on February 03^rd, 2011. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company from May 05^th, 2010 to May 04^th, 2011.  The complainant spent Rs.3,02,214/- on the repair of the vehicle. He filed claim before the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company paid Rs.1,65,549/- towards full and final settlement of the claim to the complainant vide Satisfaction Voucher (Annexure A-1). 

3.      Dissatisfied with the amount, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

4.      The question for consideration is whether the complainant had received the amount of Rs.1,65,549/- in full and final settlement of his claim or not?

5.      Indisputably, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.1,65,549/- from the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of his claim.  He signed the Satisfaction Voucher (Annexure A-1).

6.      It was not the case of the complainant that execution of the aforesaid Satisfaction Voucher (Annexure A-1) was obtained by the Insurance Company under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation etc.  So, he could not be allowed to reopen his claim.

7.      In National Insurance Co. Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.(2009) 1 SCC 267, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“25.   Where one of the parties to the contract issues a full and final discharge voucher (or no-dues certificate, as the case may be) confirming that he has received the payment in full and final satisfaction of all claims, and he has no outstanding claim, that amounts to discharge of the contract by acceptance of performance and the party issuing the discharge voucher/certificate cannot thereafter make any fresh claim or revive any settled claim nor can it seek reference to arbitration in respect of any claim.”

8.      In Aradhna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Through Sh. Ashok Avasthi, Managing Director Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2015 (2) CPR 482 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission after relying upon a judgment titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd, 2015 AIR SCW 67 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant had accepted the payment in full and final settlement of it’s claim.

9.      In the case in hand, the complainant has not been able to produce any evidence to show that there was misrepresentation, fraud or coercion on the part of the Insurance Company in paying the amount of Rs.1,65,549/-, rather, the amount was received by him with free consent. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

10.    For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 01.03.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK