Haryana

Jind

CC/123/2015

Balvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. B.S. Deshwal

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, JIND. 
                                                Complaint Case No : 123of 2015
                                                Date of Institution   :  18.9.2015
                                                Date of Decision      : 10.11.2016

Balvinder Singh s/o Sh. Vijay Singh r/o vill. Dhanori Teh. Narwana, District Jind. 
                                                                              ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd; Samana District Patiala through its Branch Manager.
National Insurance Co. Ltd; Narwana through its Branch Manager.
National Insurance Co. Ltd; DO X, Hero Honda Vertical 101-106 BMC House Cannaught Palace, New Delhi through its Branch Manager.
M/s New Vikas Automobile Authorized Dealer Hero Honda Company, Narwana Road, Khanauri Mandi Distt. Sangrur through its Prop.
                                                                         …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of the
                         Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM: SH.A.K. SARDANA PRESIDENT.
      SMT. BIMLA SHEOKAND, MEMBER.
              SH. M.K. KHURANA, MEMBER.    

Present:  Sh. B.S. Deswal, Adv. counsel for complainant.
          Sh. K.K. Mittal Adv. counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.
          Sh. A.K. Gautam Adv. counsel for OP No.4.     
         
ORDER:

              Brief facts of the  present complaint are that  the complainant  purchased   Hero Honda Splendor Plus motor-cycle bearing chassis No. MBLHA10 AMCHF52956, Engine No.HA10 EJCHF 43549 Model 2012 from OP No.4 and there was a tie-up between Hero Honda Company & National Insurance Co. Ltd. to provide insurance facilities to consumers/customers who purchase their products &  thus OP No. 4  got insured the motor-cycle of the complainant with National Insurance Company  Ltd. i.e. OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.42,180/- vide policy No.35100731126200826915   covering the risk i.e. accident, theft, damages etc. for the period from 22.6.2012 to 21.6.2013. The above said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident with Car/Tata Indica bearing registration No. HR-32B-8928 in the area of village Belarkha at Narwana to Dhanori road on 25.6.2012 & FIR No.144 dated 25.6.2012 U/s 279/337/304A, IPC was registered at P.S. Sadar Narawana against the driver of above said car. The brother of the complainant who was driving the motor-cycle  expired due to  said accident and motor-cycle totally damaged. The surveyor was appointed by the OPs who assessed the total loss of motor-cycle of the complainant in accident but OPs did not release the claim of motor-cycle and thus having no alternative complainant served a legal notice through Sh. Arun Raj Rana, Adv. Kaithal upon the OPs  whereupon complainant received a telephonic message from OP No.1 on 17.4.2013 that your claim amount of Rs.24,000/- has been transferred in your bank account which was received by him under protest whereas he was entitled to get a sum of Rs.42,180/-  from OP insurance company as mentioned in the policy as IDV i.e. insured declared value since the motor-cycle was in damaged condition and lying with OP No.4 after accident. Complainant has also contended that he earlier filed an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before Permanent Lok Adalat for public utility services Jind on 7.2.2014 but due to legal laws, the same was withdrawn on 5.8.2015 with permission to file fresh complaint and as such he has filed the present complaint against OPs as they are     deficient in providing proper services to him and  prayed that the complaint be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the remaining insured amount alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.,  & to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain & harassment  to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice,   OPs  No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and tendered reply to the complaint whereas OP No.4 though appeared through counsel but did not file the reply despite last opportunity &  thus his defence was  struck off vide order dated 12.1.2016 passed by the Forum. OPs  No.1 to 3 urged in the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint & this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try & decide the present complaint as the claim has been settled by OP No.1 at District Patiala. On merits, it has been urged that the surveyor was appointed by the  OP insurance company who submitted his report  on the basis of “ONE TIME CASH LOSS SETTLEMENT” assessing claim net payable to the tune of Rs.24,475/- which the complainant received as full & final payment vide satisfaction voucher. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of  OPs. In the end, OPs have   prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 
3.    To prove his contention, counsel for  complainant tendered  affidavit of complainant as Ex. C-1 alongwith documents as  Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-16  and closed the  evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Raj Kishore, Manager as Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain, Govt. approved surveyor as Ex. OP-2 alongwith documents as Ex. OP-3 to Ex. OP-12 and closed the evidence. 

 

4.         We have heard the Ld. Counsels of all the parties and perused the record placed on file. The Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant purchased Hero Honda Splender Plus Motor-cycle &  got insured from National Insurance Company Ltd. for an amount of Rs.42,180/-  by paying due  premium to OP insurance company and the said insurance policy was valid from 22.6.2012 to 21.6.2013. The above said motor-cycle met with an accident on 25.6.2012 & F.I.R. was lodged with the police authorities on the same day i.e. 25.6.2012. After that the insurance company was also informed about the accident and claim from was submitted whereupon surveyor was appointed who assessed as total loss of the motor-cycle but on 17.4.2013, a telephonic message was received by the complainant that a sum of Rs.24,000/- has been directly deposited in the account of the complainant by the insurance company as full & final payment whereas the complainant was legally entitled for a sum of Rs.42,180/- i.e. the insured declared value as mentioned in the policy certificate as IDV. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further emphasized on the document Ex. OP-8 contending that  the signature of the complainant was taken on the  satisfaction voucher at the time of purchase of the said motor-cycle which is illegal & not justified in the eyes of law and  requested for  allowing  the complaint. 
5.    On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 argued that the  present complaint is time barred since the  complainant has filed the present complaint after a period of more than two years as admitted by the complainant that on 17.4.2013, he received a telephonic message about the  disbursement of  Rs.24,000/- directly in his account by the OP insurance company whereas he has preferred the complaint on 18.9.2015 and thus there is delay of more than two years in filing the complaint. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 also  laid emphasis on  document Ex. OP-8(satisfaction voucher) whereby  the payment has been received by complainant as full & final  settlement as assessed by the IRDA surveyor and contended that after receiving the payment of claim as full & final, he has no cause of action to file the present complaint. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 to 3 & requested for dismissal of complaint.
6.    After hearing the rival contentions of Ld. Counsels of the parties and going through the record placed on file, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable since complainant has already received a sum of Rs.24,475/- from OP insurance company as full & final payment against claim of the motor-cycle in question by signing the satisfaction voucher (Ex. OP-8) and thus he has no cause of action against the OPs qua the said claim. As such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced:

                                                                                                                                               PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                             District Consumer Disputes
                                                                                                                                     Redressal Forum, Jind. 

                                                                                                                                                     Member

                                                                                                                                                      Member