Haryana

StateCommission

A/896/2015

RAM SARUP MAKKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

MANOJ MAKKAR

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       896 of 2015

Date of Institution:       15.10.2015

Date of Decision :        18.11.2015

 

 

Ram Sarup Makkar son of Shri Bahadur Chand, resident of House No.1148/21, Prem Nagar, Rohtak.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

National Insurance Company Limited, Gohana through its Branch Manager, Rohtak.

Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the appellant

 

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated September 14^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed. 

2.      Ram Sarup Makkar-complainant was owner of Honda Activa bearing registration No.HR12H-3363.  It was insured with National Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Insurance Company’). The Insured Declared Value of the Honda Activa was Rs.15,633/-.   It was stolen on January 30^th, 2013.  FIR No.60 dated February 07^th, 2013 was lodged with the Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak.  The complainant submitted claim with the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company paid Rs.11,724/-, that is, 75% of the insured amount to the complainant. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that the Insurance Company illegally deducted Rs.3908/- from the claim.

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the matter was settled with the complainant on non standard basis.  The complainant had already received Rs.11,675/-, that is, 75% of the insured amount with the consent letter. 

4.      Indisputably, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.11,675/-, that is, 75% of the insured amount from the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of his claim. He signed the Acceptance/Consent (Exhibit R-2).  

5.      It was not the case of the complainant that execution of the aforesaid acceptance was obtained by the Insurance Company under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation etc.  So, he could not be allowed to reopen his claim.

6.      In National Insurance Co. Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.(2009) 1 SCC 267, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“25.   Where one of the parties to the contract issues a full and final discharge voucher (or no-dues certificate, as the case may be) confirming that he has received the payment in full and final satisfaction of all claims, and he has no outstanding claim, that amounts to discharge of the contract by acceptance of performance and the party issuing the discharge voucher/certificate cannot thereafter make any fresh claim or revive any settled claim nor can it seek reference to arbitration in respect of any claim.”

7.      In Aradhna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Through Sh. Ashok Avasthi, Managing Director Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2015 (2) CPR 482 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission after relying upon a judgment titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd, 2015 AIR SCW 67 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant had accepted the payment in full and final settlement of it’s claim.

8.      In the instant case no evidence has been produced by the complainant to show that there was misrepresentation, fraud or coercion on the part of the Insurance Company to settle the claim, rather, the complainant received the amount with free consent.

9.      In this view of the matter, order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed. 

 

 

Announced 18.11.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

UK