Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 482
Instituted on : 05.10.2018.
Decided on : 27.09.2023
Mahabir s/o Sh. Inder Singh R/o village-Dobh, Teh. & District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office II, Naraina Complex, 2nd Floor, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Argued: Sh.R.K.Nandal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.O.P.Punia, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of a Tata LPT-3118 truck bearing registration no.HR-46E-6811 which was got insured from the respondent vide policy No.421600/31/16/6300003744 for a period from 15.03.2017 to 14.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.2600000/-. On 19.10.2017 the said truck was stolen by some unknown culprit. He immediately informed the police and a case vide FIR No.497 dated 20.10.2017 was registered. The complainant also informed the opposite party well within time. The police has also filed untraced report in this case. Complainant requested the opposite parties many times but despite his repeated requests, the respondent did not disburse the amount of claim to the complainant. The complainant was in great need of money for payment of the installments and he was not having any source of income as his vehicle was stolen and the opposite party taken the advantage of same and settled the claim only for an amount of Rs.1761938/- only while insurance was of Rs.26lacs. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.838062/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the complainant has already received the full and final amount of claim as per his own consent. The complainant gave his affidavit dated 21.08.2018 that one key of the vehicle has been lost and he is agree for deduction of 25% of the claim amount and agreed to receive the claim of Rs.1761938/- and also stated that he will not take any legal action and discharge voucher has also been signed by the complainant and financer bank ICICI Bank Ltd. as full and final settlement of claim without any protest. Accordingly, the claim was settled on sub standard basis and the amount was paid by the answering respondent to the complainant. The complainant also got the RC of the vehicle transferred. The complainant has already received full and final amount of claim as per his own consent and now nothing is payable by the respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.05.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R21 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.10.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case an affidavit Ex.R21 has been placed on record by the opposite party, which is given by the complainant. As per this affidavit he agreed to receive an amount of Rs.1761938/-. A claim discharge voucher Ex.R13 dated 11.06.2018 is placed on record by the opposite party, which is submitted by the complainant, as per which he has received an amount of Rs.1761938/- towards full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant has filed the present complaint for remaining claim amount from the opposite party and has also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in 1997(2)438 tiled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur. But the perusal of this judgment shows that the same is on the different facts and is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance upon the law of United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh decided on 12.08.1999 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as per which, Hon’ble Supreme court has held that: “Discharge vouchers are admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints”. The alleged law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that in the present case, complainant has already received the full and final payment from the opposite party and has also issued a discharge voucher for the same. Hence nothing is payable by the opposite party. As such present case stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.09.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
