Haryana

StateCommission

A/425/2016

DINESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.DAARIA

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       425 of 2016

Date of Institution:       16.05.2015

Date of Decision :        02.12.2016

 

 

Dinesh Kumar son of Sh. Rajinder Singh, resident of Panna Sonth, Near Post Office, Village Kheri Sadh, District Rohtak, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Narain Complex, 2^nd Floor, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001 (Haryana).

 

2.      Manager, Head Office, National Insurance Company Limited, 3, Middletown Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolkatta-700071 (West Bengal).

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for the appellant

                             Shri G.D. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents     

 

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated April 05^th, 2065 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was allowed.  National Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) was directed to pay Rs.3,49,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, that is, April 21^st, 2016 till its realization and Rs.3500/- litigation expenses to the complainant.   

2.      Dinesh Kumar-complainant got his car bearing No.HR12T-9266 insured with the Insurance Company for the period August 23^rd, 2013 to August 22^nd, 2014.  The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.4,40,000/-.   The car met with an accident on April 29^th, 2014.   The complainant informed the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company appointed Sh. Ashok Kumar, Surveyor, who reported it a case of total loss.  The spot survey was conducted by Major Mehar Singh.  Raj Motors, Rohtak estimated the repair work more than the IDV.  The claim submitted by the complainant was not settled.  The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company, in its written version, pleaded that Ashok Kumar was never appointed as Surveyor.  M/s Harshit Associates Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors were appointed.  On the request of complainant, the car was re-surveyed by Sh. Daya Ram Gupta, Surveyor.  The complainant gave consent letter that claim be settled at Rs.3,50,000/- and the Insurance Company was ready to pay Rs.3,49,000/-.  The receipt was also signed by the complainant.  Remaining contents of the complaint were denied and it was prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed on record consent letter (Annexure A-1) signed by the complainant whereby he agreed that his claim be settled at Rs.3,50,000/- and receipt dated May 05^th, 2016 (Annexure A-2) signed by counsel for the complainant before the District Forum vide which he received cheque amounting Rs.3,84,770/- in favour of complainant in full and final settlement of the claim.

5.      In face of it, learned counsel for the complainant has fairly conceded that he received the aforesaid cheque of Rs.3,84,770/- from the Insurance Company. 

6.      It was not the case of the complainant that execution of the aforesaid acceptance 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 instant case no evidence has been produced by the complainant to show that there was misrepresentation, fraud or coercion on the part of the Insurance Company to settle the claim, rather, the complainant received the amount with free consent.

10.    In this view of the matter, order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed. 

 

 

Announced 02.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK