BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 39 of 2012
Date of Institution : 15.2.2012
Date of Decision : 1.6.2016
Hari Singh son of Sh.Dharam Pal, r/o village Sherpura, tehsil and district Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sirsa, Branch Office, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SH.RAJIV MEHTA………… ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.K.R.Pilania, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is owner of Jeep bearing registration no. HR-39-B-2243, which was duly insured with New India Assurance Company i.e. with opposite party for the period from 19.5.2011 to 18.5.2012 and all the risks were covered under the said policy. Sh.Inderjeet Singh, brother of the complainant was having a valid driving licence. On 27.9.2011, the jeep turned turtle in the area of village Sherpura to Chadiwal and the jeep was damaged badly. On getting information, insurance company i.e. opposite party sent its surveyor. On the assurance of opposite party, the car was then duly got repaired by the complainant from Parmanand Motors, 77 Vikas Nagar, Hisar and he paid repair expenses of Rs.29684/-. The complainant also paid Rs.16540/- to Taneja Spray Centre, 502, Auto Market, Hisar, Rs.2300/- to Rajinder Dainting Garrage, 515 Auto Market, Hisar, Rs.1750 to New Janta Auto Electrician Works at Hisar and further Rs.900/- to Laxmi Seat Repair at Hisar. Thereafter, the complainant submitted his claim with all the bills to the opposite party, who made payment of only Rs.26242/- vide cheque dated 14.12.2011. The complainant received the said cheque under protest. Now, the complainant has filed this complaint for remaining repair expenses Rs.28932- besides damages for harassment, mental tension etc. and litigation expenses.
2. Case of the insurance company i.e. of opposite party, in its reply, is that the complainant has already received a sum of Rs.26242/- as full and final satisfaction to his claim. He had duly executed a Full and Final settlement Voucher in this regard. It is denied that the complainant received the said amount under protest.
3. Both the parties led evidence in the shape of affidavits and various documents. The complainant tendered Ex.P1-his affidavit and Ex.P2 to Ex.P9-repair bills; whereas the opposite party tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.R.K.Indora, Divisional Manager and Ex.R2 to Ex.R4.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 are the copies of discharge voucher, bearing the signatures of the complainant. Vide this discharge voucher, complainant had received cheque of Rs.26242/-. There is specific recital in it that this discharge receipt was being given to the company in full and final settlement of his claim and he will not raise any dispute directly or indirectly in respect of his claim. There is nothing to discredit this documentary evidence of the opposite party. It is amply proved that the complainant had received cheque of Rs.26242/- as full and final satisfaction of his claim, undertaking not to raise any dispute directly or indirectly, regarding his claim. Therefore, when once the complainant has received the amount unconditionally on 13.12.2011, then filing of this complaint, after about one year, is not at all entertainable. Filing of this complaint, after about one year, also points towards malafide intention of the complainant.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has rightly cited Kanta Mathur Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & ORS, I(2015) CPJ 151 (NC). This ruling is fully applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case in hand.
7. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
