Haryana

StateCommission

A/239/2015

HARISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

RANDEEP SINGH

06 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      239 of 2015

Date of Institution:      12.03.2015

Date of Decision :       06.07.2015

 

Harish Kumar s/o Sh. P.S. Sharma, Resident of H.No.246/9, Kayasthan Mohalla, Rohtak.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

National Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Narain Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak, through its Divisional Manager.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               None for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated February 11^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Rohtak, whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.

2.      Harish Kumar-complainant (appellant herein) got his car, bearing registration No.HR-04M-0010, insured with National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’). During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the car was burnt. He informed the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company settled the claim of the complainant at Rs.3,86,755/- excluding the value of salvage to the extent of Rs.70,000/-. The complainant preferred to retain the salvage and received the amount of Rs.3,86,755/-. He executed consent letter (Exhibit R-2) and affidavit (Exhibit R-3).

3.      After accepting the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,86,755/- in full and final settlement of his claim, he filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that the salvage value was of Rs.30,000/- whereas the Insurance Company wrongly assessed it as Rs.70,000/-.     

4.      The question for consideration is whether the complainant had received the amount of Rs.3,86,755/- in full and final settlement of his claim or not?

5.      Indisputably, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.3,86,755/- from the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of his claim.  He signed the consent letter (Exhibit R-2) and affidavit (Exhibit R-3).

6.      It was not the case of the complainant that execution of the aforesaid receipt 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 in paying the amount of Rs.3,86,755/-, rather, the same was received by him with free consent.

11.    In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

12.    The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

 

Announced 06.07.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL