Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/104/2019

Ram Balkar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.Atwan

10 Jun 2022

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    104 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         19.03.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 10.06.2022

 

Ram Balkar s/o Shri Shankar Singh, r/o H.No.7-A, Moti Bagh, Babial, Ambala Cantt, now r/o D-42, Global City, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                         Versus

 

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regd. and Head Office: New India Assurance Bldg. 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001, through its Managing Director.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office: Dr. Sahni Nursing Home, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Manoj Atwan, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was the registered owner of Ford Figo car bearing Registration No.HR01AD-3400 and the same was insured with OPs vide policy No.35360131160100011291 w.e.f. from 17.03.2017 to 16.03.2018 with total value of car as Rs.1,50,900/-. The said car was met with an accident on 18.02.2018 and when same was taken on superdari by him, on 27.02.2018 it was again met with an accident and car was damaged. Thereafter, surveyor of OPs came and took the photographs of the car and completed other formalities. In the insurance policy, total value of car was Rs.1,59,900/-, but despite several requests, the OPs failed to pay the said amount to him. Ultimately, being upset from the promises of the OPs and under pressure and undue influence of OPs, he agreed to settle the claim on net of salvage basis for Rs.63,000/- on 25.02.2019 after a gap of one year from the date of accident and salvage/scrap of car to be given to him. But inspite of above settlement, the OPs had not paid Rs.63,000/- to him despite several visits by him, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statements stating therein that the complainant has not come before the Commission with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from this Commission. On receiving the intimation from applicant regarding loss of vehicle, OPs appointed one independent IRDA approved Surveyor Dynamic Associates, who after assessment of loss, submitted detailed survey report. As per that report, vehicle had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.63,000/- inclusive of excess clause, on NOS with RC, as the vehicle was under litigation and was released on superdari. As per settlement, the insured will retain the vehicle with its RC on its own risk and responsibility. Complainant had given his final consent on a Stamp Paper duly signed and notarized. Complainant also submitted other relevant documents. After submission of consent letter and other documents, claim of complainant was processed and payable claim amount of Rs.63,000/- was paid to him. The OPs had paid the claim amount of the complainant and complainant is not entitled for any further amount, so present complaint deserves dismissal on this score with costs.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was the registered owner of Ford Figo car and the same was insured with OPs with total value of car as Rs.1,50,900/-. The said car was met with an accident on 18.02.2018 and when same was taken on superdari by him, on 27.02.2018 it was again met with an accident and car was damaged. He further argued that in the insurance policy, total value of car was Rs.1,50,900/-, but despite several requests, the OPs failed to pay the said amount to him. Ultimately, being upset from the promises of the OPs and under pressure and undue influence of OPs, he agreed to settle the claim on net of salvage basis for Rs.63,000/- on 25.02.2019 after a gap of one year from the date of accident and salvage/scrap of car to be given to him. But inspite of above settlement, the OPs had not paid Rs.63,000/- to him despite several visits by him, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed that OPs be directed to release him total value of the car amounting Rs.1,50,900/- with compensation and harassment value. To support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Abhay Neelawarne, Petitioner Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Anr., Respondents, 2008 (2) CPJ, 261 (NC); M/s Luxmi Rice Mills, Complainant Versus National Insurance Company Ltd., Opposite Party, 1991 (1) CPJ, 289 (Haryana State Commission, Chandigarh).

8.                The learned counsel for OPs argued that on receiving the intimation from applicant regarding loss of vehicle, OPs appointed one independent IRDA approved Surveyor Dynamic Associates, who after assessment of loss, submitted detailed survey report. As per that report, vehicle had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.63,000/- inclusive of excess clause, on NOS with RC, as the vehicle was under litigation and was released on superdari. He further argued that as per settlement, the insured will retain the vehicle with its RC on its own risk and responsibility. Complainant had given his final consent on a Stamp Paper duly signed and notarized. Complainant also submitted other relevant documents. After submission of consent letter and other documents, claim of complainant was processed and payable claim amount of Rs.63,000/- was paid to him. The OPs had paid the claim amount of the complainant and complainant is not entitled for any further amount and prayed for dismissing the present complaint.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant was the registered owner of Ford Figo car vide RC Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and the same was insured with OPs vide policy Ex.C-1 w.e.f. from 17.03.2017 to 16.03.2018 with total value of car as Rs.1,50,900/-. There is also no dispute that the said car was met with an accident on 18.02.2018 and when the same was taken on superdari by him, on 27.02.2018, it was again met with an accident and damaged.

10.              In this regard, claim intimation was given by the complainant to the OPs, vide Claim Intimation Letter Ex.C-2 to the OPs, upon which, an Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Dynamic Associates was appointed, who gave his report dated 25.02.2019 and claim was to be settled on NOS with R.C. (Net of Salvage) for Rs.63,000/- inclusive of excess clause, as the vehicle was under litigation and was released on superdari and  in this regard, the complainant gave his Consent Letter dated 25.02.2019 Ex.R-2. The OPs produced Payment Voucher as Ex.R-3 and from this Voucher Ex.R-3, it is evident that the OPs issued a cheque bearing No.57054 dated 04.06.2019 amounting Rs.63,000/- in favour of complainant.

11.              At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has also not disputed the fact of receiving an amount of Rs.63,000/- from the OPs, as per settlement. From the above pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the claim of complainant was settled between the parties for Rs.63,000/- and after giving Consent Letter by the complainant, the said amount was duly paid by the OPs to the complainant.

12.              Now, by way of filing the present complaint, the complainant mainly contented that he agreed to settle the claim on net of salvage basis for Rs.63,000/- on 25.02.2019, being upset from the promises of the OPs and under pressure and undue influence of OPs, as such, he is liable to receive the total value of the car in question amounting Rs.1,50,900/- with compensation and harassment value from the OPs. In this regard, the learned counsel for the OPs contended that the complainant had himself agreed to settle the claim of the car in question in full and final settlement amount of Rs.63,000/- and supplied duly signed and notarized on the Stamp Paper Consent Letter dated 25.02.2019 Ex.R-2 in this regard. No force or pressure was made on the complainant to accept the above claim settlement.

13.              From the perusal of contents of Consent Letter Ex.R-2 issued by the complainant to the OPs, it is evident that the complainant, on his sweet will, himself agreed to accept the full and final settlement of his claim on NOS basis with R.C. in the sum of Rs.63,000/-. In the said Consent Letter Ex.R-2, the complainant also gave his consent that “his policy will stand cancelled immediately after settlement of my above claim and he also confirm that he shall not raise any dispute/issue against the insurance company for this claim settlement in any court/settlement authority in future”. This Consent Letter Ex.R-2 was duly signed and notarized on the Stamp Paper of Rs.100/-. Complainant is bound by the contents of his own Consent Letter Ex.R-2 and now he cannot wriggle out from it and now by filing the present complaint, he himself violating the said Consent Letter by saying that under pressure and undue influence of OPs he agreed to settle the claim. Moreover, complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence on the case file, vide which, it can be gathered that the OPs made pressure and force on the complainant to settle the claim in full and final settlement amount of Rs.63,000/-. So, in this way, this Commission found no force in this contention of the complainant that the OPs made pressure and force on him to settle his claim in full and final settlement amount of Rs.63,000/-, hence the same is rejected.

14.              At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that no doubt, the complainant received the settlement amount of Rs.63,000/- from the OPs, but the OPs paid the same on 04.06.2019 i.e. after filing the present complaint on 19.03.2019, due to which, the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss and forced to file the present complaint before this Commission, therefore, certainly the complainant is entitled to the compensation amount as well as litigation expenses for filing the present complaint. The case laws produced by the complainant are not disputed but the same are not helpful to the case of the complainant being rested on different footings.

15.              From the perusal of case file, it shows that the second accident in question took place on 27.02.2018 and from that date, the complainant was continuously in touch with the OPs, like submitting the documents with the OPs, cooperating with the surveyor, appointed by the OPs, in his survey and investigation like took the photographs etc., but the OPs had not paid the claim amount to the complainant even after settling the matter in full and final amount of Rs.63,000/- even after submitting the Consent Letter by the complainant to them. The complainant filed the present complaint on 19.03.2019 and the OPs refunded full and final settlement amount of Rs.63,000/- to him on 04.06.2019 i.e. after more than one year from the date of accident in question as well as after more than 2½ months from the date of submitting the Consent Letter by the complainant to the OPs, due to which, complainant was suffered huge mental agony and  physical harassment, forced to file the present complaint before this Commission, which is an act of gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As such, certainly the complainant is entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses, due to an act of negligence in service by the OPs.

16.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint against OPs and direct the OPs jointly and severally, to pay interest @6% simple per annum on the amount of Rs.63,000/- from 19.03.2019 to 04.06.2019, to the complainant. We further direct the OPs, jointly and severally, to pay compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to him, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total award amount of Rs.35,000/- (30000 + 5000) shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization, and the complainant shall also be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Act, against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:10.06.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                  DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.