THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 329 of 2014

Date of Institution : 12.6.2014

Date of Decision : 02.07.2015

M/s. Surinder Kumar Bros through its parner Sh. Sunil Kumar, Inner Circular Road, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

National Insurance Company through its Branch Manager 20- Batala Road, Near Sangam Cinema,Amritsar

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh. D.P.Singh,Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh. P.N.Khanna,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by M/s. Surinder Kumar & Bros through its partner Sunil Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging

-2-

therein that he obtained policy bearing No. 484482/48/12/7600001123 from the opposite party for the period from 16.9.2012 to 15.9.2013 on payment of Rs. 7350/-with sum assured Rs. 5,12,00,000/- under Currency Notes in transit. According to the complainant on 15.10.2012 a snatching of Rs. 4,70,000/- took place from the employee/cash collector namely Vijay Kumar Son of Brij Mohan of the complainant firm, for which FIR 138 dated 16.10.2012 was registered at P.S Raja Sansi /s 382/34 IPC. Complainant has alleged that cash in transit to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs at anyone loss is covered under the policy. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite party alongwith all the relevant documents. The police after investigation presented untraced report before the Ilaqa Magistrate which was accepted by the Ilaqa Magistrate vide order dated 3.6.2013 .Opposite party also appointed surveyor/investigator , who submitted his report . Thereafter opposite party had lingered on the matter with one pretext or the other . Complainant was surprised to see his bank account No. 31809334184 that only a sum of Rs. 3,52,500/- was credited to their account against total claim of Rs. 4,70,000/-. The complainant approached the opposite party for the balance amount of Rs. 1,17,500/- on which they told the complainant that claim to the extent of 75% of loss is passed. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,17,500/- alongwith interest. Compensation and litigation expenses were also

-3-

demanded.

2. On notice opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that while processing the claim of the complainant firm it was observed that although the complainant had submitted affidavits of its two parties regarding their dealing with the complainant yet no account books were produced. So it was decided to dispose of this claim on sub standard basis and the matter was also discussed with the complainant firm who also agreed to the same and issued the consent on their letter head mentioning that “ as per your discussion, we are ready to accept the claim amount for Rs. 3,52,500/- which is as discussed by you. It is our full and final settlement”. In the light of said consent, to settle the claim in full and final for Rs. 3,52,500/- the company has already made the said payment to the complainant firm. It was submitted that once the complainant firm has given their consent without any protest to settle the claim of Rs. 3,52,500/-, no further allegation can be made out by the complainant and the present complaint is not maintainable. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to C-14, affidavit of Sh.Sunil Kumar, Partner of complainant firm Ex.C-15, copy of investigation report Ex.C-16.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.M.S.Bhatia,Sr.D.M. Ex.OP/1,affidavit

-4-

of Mr.Ashwani Gupta ,CA Ex.OP/2 alongwith douments Ex.OP/3 to Ex.OP/8.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant obtained policy bearing No. 484482/48/12/7600001123 from the opposite party for the period from 16.9.2012 to 15.9.2013 with sum assured Rs. 5,12,00,000/- under Currency Notes in transit. On 15.10.2012 a snatching of Rs. 4,70,000/- took place from the employee/cash collector namely Vijay Kumar Son of Brij Mohan of the complainant firm for which FIR 138 dated 16.10.2012 Ex.C-11 was registered at P.S Raja Sansi /s 382/34 IPC. The complainant alleges that cash in transit to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs at anyone loss is covered under the policy. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite party. Opposite party investigated the matter. The police could not trace out the thief nor could recover the amount and they issued untraced certificate Ex.C-7 and also filed untraced report before the Ilaqa Magistrate which was accepted by the Ilaqa Magistrate vide order dated 3.6.2013 Ex.C-6. Opposite party also appointed surveyor/investigator , who submitted his report Ex.C-16 who also concluded that above mentioned snatching of cash from employee of insured by the

-5-

culprits has taken place on the reported date of loss but the opposite party credited only Rs. 3,52,500/- to the account of the complainant and did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,17,500/-. The complainant approached the opposite party for the payment of the balance amount, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that while processing the claim of the complainant firm it was observed that although the complainant has submitted affidavits of its two parties regarding their dealing with the complainant yet no account books were produced. So it was decided to dispose of this claim on sub standard basis and the matter was also discussed with the complainant firm who also agreed to the same and issued the consent on their letter head mentioning that “as per your discussion, we are ready to accept the claim amount for Rs. 3,52,500/- which is as discussed by you. It is our full and final settlement”. The said consent letter is Ex.OP5 dated 1.5.2014. Resultantly the opposite party has already made the said payment to the complainant firm by crediting this amount in the account of the complainant and this fact has been admitted by the complainant. So the complainant is not entitled to the balance amount. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua

-6-

the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant had insurance policy Ex.OP8 from the opposite party for the period from 16.9.2012 to 15.9.2013 in which cash in transit from anywhere from Punjab to the office of the complainant to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs at anyone loss is covered. The complainant submitted that on 15.10.2012 some unknown persons snatched a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- from its employee/cash collector Vijay Kumar, who lodged FIR with the police of P.S. Raja Sansi. Resultantly FIR 138 dated 16.10.2012 Ex.C-11 was registered at P.S Raja Sansi District Amritsar. The polie could not trace/catch the thief nor could recover the amount of the complainant. Resultantly the police issued untraced certificate Ex.C-7 .The police also filed untraced report with the Ilaqa Magistrate which was duly accepted by the Ilaqa Magistrate vide order dated 3.6.2013 Ex.C-6 .Claim was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party. Opposite party appointed surveyor Ashwani Gupta & Company who submitted his report Ex.OP3 dated 23.5.2015. Opposite party also appointed Investigator who submitted his report Ex.C-16 dated 25.2.201. Surveyor through his affidavit Ex.OP2 submitted that complainant in his claim has stated that the payment of Rs. 1,90,000/- was received by him from Zimidara Feed Store and payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- was received from M/s. Gobind Feed Store. No doubt the complainant has produced affidavits of the proprietors of these firms,. But no

-7-

account books were produced by the said parties nor they could verify the amount paid by them to the complainant firm. Apart from this cash payment exceeding Rs. 20000/- is prohibited u/s 40-A(3) of the Income Tax Act. Resultantly the surveyor demanded papers in this regard from the aforesaid firms Zimidara Feed Store and Gobind Feed Store. Rather the surveyor found that at the given address of the aforesaid firms, there do not exist any such firms rather at the premises of Gobind Feed Store , there was M/s. Dhudrai Karyana Store and at the premises of Zimidara Feed Store, there was M/s. Bhupinder Trading Company. So the opposite party called the complainant for discussion and during discussion the complainant agreed to settle his claim to the tune of Rs. 3,52,500/- as full and final settlement of his claim. In this regard he executed consent letter dated 1.5.2014 Ex.OP5 thereby after negotiation and full discussion with the opposite party, complainant accepted the claim to the tune of Rs 3,52,500/- as full and final settlement of his Claim. Opposite party has credited this amount to the account of the complainant as admitted by the complainant himself. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case Shree Bala Ji Woollen Mills Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd II(2013) CPJ 366 (NC) that where once insured has received the amount in full and final settlement of his claim and signed the discharge voucher , the insured claimant cannot be permitted to reagitate his claim unless claimant is able to establish that discharge voucher was obtained by undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or

-8-

coercion. In this case also the complainant signed the discharge voucher Ex. OP5 voluntarily and received the payment in his account without protest. So it cannot be said that the complainant was forced or compelled by the Insurance company to settle his claim. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in case Deepak Electronics and Gift Corner Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd IV(2012) CPJ 500 (NC).

9. As the complainant himself has after discussion with the opposite party settled the claim to the tune of Rs. 3,52,500/- as full and final settlement of his claim voluntarily, so the opposite party was justified in crediting this amount to the account of the complainant as full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant. As such the complainant is not entitled to the balance amount.

10. Consequently we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant. Hence, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

2.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member