Delhi

East Delhi

CC/296/2013

ANIL ABHUSHAN BHANDAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

O.I.C. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.  296/13

 

M/s. Anil Abhushan Bhandar

through its sole proprietor

Shri Anil kumar Bansal

7/375, Anaj Mandi

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032                                                    ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Division No. 14,80, First Floor, F.I.E.

Patparganj Industrial Area

Delhi – 110 092                                                                 …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 10.04.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 27.10.2017

Judgment Passed on: 31.10.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Anil Kumar Bansal, sole proprietor of M/s. Anil Abhushan Bhandar against M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant took a Burglary Insurance Policy no. 271700/48/2011/1361 from M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) for the period of one year w.e.f. 27.09.2010 to 26.09.2011 in respect of the items of gold and silver lying at the shop of the complainant at Anaj Mandi, Shahdara.  A theft took place in the said shop and about 1.750 Kg. gold jewellery, 22 kg. silver jewellery, Rs. 7,00,000/- of  diamond jewellery and  Rs. 50,000/- cash were taken by thieves.

          A FIR was lodged by the complainant with P.S. Farsh Bazar vide FIR No. 68 dated 14.03.2011.  The respondent company was also intimated regarding the loss.  A surveyor, Shri Ram Gopal Verma was appointed by the respondent company.  After completing all the formalities, the complainant was informed that Rs. 19,39,500/-  was assessed by the surveyor.  He was also informed that after receiving a full and final settlement receipt, the amount of Rs. 19,39,500/- would be released.  The complainant had no option, but to sign the full and final settlement receipt. 

          After receiving the amount of Rs. 19,39,500/-, the complainant moved an application under RTI Act to seek the entire copies of the file pertaining to the his claim.  After going through the copies of the claim file, complainant was shocked to know that a substantial part of the claim had been reduced by the respondent company.  The complainant sent a letter to the respondent company asking it to pay the balance claim, but of no avail.  Hence, the complainant prayed for direction to respondent company to pay an amount of Rs. 14,42,582/- alongwith interest @ 18% and cost of litigation.

3.       In the reply, OP have taken various pleas such as the complaint was barred by Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act;  payment of the claim was released after receiving the Discharge Voucher dated 01.11.2012 for a sum of Rs. 19,39,500/- alongwith a consent letter, letter of undertaking, letter of subrogation, letter of indemnity etc. 

          They have further stated that after receiving the claim in full and final, the complainant has no right to file the complaint.  Other facts have also been denied.    

4.       In support of its complaint, complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of Burglary-Standard Policy Schedule (Ex.CW1/A), copy of FIR (Ex.CW1/B), copy of surveyor report obtained under RTI Act with the complaint (Ex.CW1/C) and copy of letter alongwith reply (Ex.CW1/D).

          In defence, OP have examined Shri Khem Chand, Divisional Manager of OP company, who has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of Discharge Voucher dated 01.11.2012, Consent Letter, Letter of Undertaking, Letter of subrogation, Letter of Indemnity etc. (Ex. OP/1 colly). 

5.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. It has been argued on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company that claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated as he have already received the payment and gave discharge voucher.  By giving the discharge voucher, the complainant was no more a consumer.

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that complainant gave discharge voucher under pressure and he was consumer inspite of giving the discharge voucher. 

          To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the discharge voucher, which have been submitted by the complainant to the insurance company.  If a look is made to the document Annexure A, submitted by the complainant to the Oriental Insurance Company, it is noticed that complainant have given their consent for passing their claim for an amount of             Rs. 19,39,500/- in full and final settlement.  When the complainant have given his consent for full and final settlement and have also given undertaking as well as subrogation letter, later on he cannot say that he was paid less amount.

          The fact that complainant have given consent for his claim for Rs. 19,39,500/- in full and final settlement and have received this amount as per his own version in the complaint as well as in the evidence, he no more remains a consumer.  Thus, the claim repudiated by the insurance company was in accordance with the law.  There cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of insurance company.  Thus, his claim deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President