Haryana

Jind

137/2014

Jagbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh N.K Gautam

26 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 137 of 2014
                            Date of institution:-2.10.2014
                            Date of decision:-16.6.2016
Jagbir Singh aged 48 years son of Sh. Hukam Singh resident of village Brah Khurd, Tehsil and District Jind.
                                       ..Complainant.
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited Divisional Office, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.
The Branch Manager, OIC, Jind. 

                                          …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:     Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.  

Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for the complainant. 
        Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv.for the opposite parties.  
Order:-
         Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant earlier filed the complaint in complaint No.106 of 2012 titled as Jagbir Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance which was decided on 4.10.2013 directing the complainant to submit the required documents within two months. The complainant submitted the required documents and opposite parties given the claim amount of Rs.99,500/- instead of Rs.1,68,254/- and complainant again filed this  complaint for issuing the direction to 
            Jagbir Singh Vs. OIC etc.
                    …2…
opposite parties to make the  remaining payment amounting to Rs.69,254/-. The complainant further alleged in this complaint that   he is registered owner of Bolaero Maxi Cab bearing registration No. HR56/8834 and the same was insured  for a sum of Rs.3,13,500/- vide cover note No.116717 dated 29.10.2009 valid from 29.10.2009 to 28.10.2010 with the opposite party No.1. The above said vehicle of the complainant was going from Jind towards Karnal Side suddenly  an opposite side vehicle bearing No. HR-46B/7193 came in front of the vehicle of complainant and hit the right side front of insured vehicle, hence it became unbalanced and over turned towards left side of the road and got totally damaged the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the accident of his vehicle. The opposite parties appointed the surveyor Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain who inspected the spot survey and assessed the loss of vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter the Company advised the complainant to get repaired the vehicle from Auto Market, Jind and submitted the bills to the Company for getting compensation. The complainant repaired the vehicle from Shiv Automobiles Jind, Mahindra & Mahindra and submitted the bill No.681 and 682 dated 19.10.2010 amounting to Rs.1,65,254/-. The opposite parties have passed the claim amount of Rs.99,500/- against claim amount of Rs.1,68,254/- which is illegal, unlawful and deficient one. The complainant served a legal notice dated 22.10.2011 through his counsel Sh. Naveen Kumar Adv. upon the opposite parties but all in vain. 
            Jagbir Singh Vs. OIC etc.
                    …3…
Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged.   
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. On merits, it is contended that on receiving the intimation of alleged accident, the opposite parties have immediately deputed Sh. Raghubir Singh Katyal, Independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who reached at the spot on the same day i.e. 6.7.2010 conducted spot survey and submitted his report on 16.7.2010. Thereafter Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jain, an Independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to conduct the final survey, who conducted the survey and submitted his report on 30.12.2010 thereby assessing the net loss to the tune of Rs.99,500/- subject to furnishing required documents. The opposite party No.1 requested to the complainant to submit the necessary documents i.e. copy of driving licence, copy of GR/Load Challan, Original Bill, copy of FIR and copy of RC but the complainant did not submit the above said documents. Ultimately, the opposite parties have left with no option except to treat the claim of complainant as ‘No Claim’ and thus the claim of complainant has been treated as ‘No Claim. The complainant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 31.3.2011. The complainant has earlier filed the complaint before this Forum for claiming the amount Rs.1,68,254/-. This Forum has given the direction to the complainant to submit the required documents for deciding the claim within two months from the date  of order dated 4.10.2013. 

            Jagbir Singh Vs. OIC etc.
                    …4…
Accordingly the complainant submitted the document, the opposite parties have settled the case of the complainant and paid an amount of Rs.99500/- through office voucher No.2262001726 dated 24.1.2014 vide cheque No.211722 dated 24.1.2014 as assessed by the Independent Surveyor and the same amount was dully and encashed by him as full and final payment. The opposite parties further stated that the complainant again filed the complaint after a gap of 7 months which is sufficient to prove that it is just misuse of process of law and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of order dated 4.10.2013 Ex. C-2 and  copy of  pass-book of account Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Sh.Mahabir Singh Sr. Divisional Manager, Ex. OP-1, copy of survey report Ex. OP-2, copy of final survey report Ex. OP-3 and copy of policy schedule Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence.
4.    We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The case of the complainant is that he received an amount of Rs.99.500/- for repair of his vehicle. However, the complainant had incurred a sum of Rs.1,68,254/- for repair of his vehicle and the opposite party-company illegally with- held an amount of Rs.69,254/-. It is undisputed that the opposite party settled the claim of the complainant by making payment of Rs.99,500/- through NEFT/RTGS as per Ex. C-3 in full and final settlement of the claim and the complainant signed the discharge voucher. The counsel 
            Jagbir Singh Vs. OIC etc.
                    …5…
for the complainant vehemently argued that the opposite party was compelled to sign the discharge voucher and the complainant was dire need of money. This type of practice adopted by the insurance company is illegal in the eyes of law. 
5.    On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the opposite party argued that the surveyor of the opposite party inspected the damaged vehicle of the complainant and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.99,500/- as full and final settlement of claim amount and the same was paid to the complainant through NEFT/RTGS and as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The counsel for the opposite party has also relied upon the case law titled as  Shree Balaji Woolen Mills Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. CPC 2013 (3) page 437 as well as case titled Haryana State Co-operative supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs Iffico Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2013 (3) CPC page 356 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that “Full and Final settlement-Coercion undue influence-Complainant accepted full and final settlement of claim-He signed the voucher without any undue influence or coercion for accepting the claim in final settlement- Once discharge voucher was signed and cheques were received without protest, then claimant is debarred from demanding on enhanced claim- State Commission correctly set aside the order of District Forum which had granted relief of the petitioner/complainant-Petition dismissed.”
    In the present case, the main question  arises before us whether the complainant has received an amount of Rs.99500/- as full and final 

                         Jagbir Singh Vs. OIC etc.
                    …6…
settlement of the claim or not? We have summoned too original payment/discharge voucher and same was produced and perused wherein the complainant has signed in Hindi. It shows that the complainant voluntarily without any pressure put his signature on the discharge cum satisfaction voucher towards full and final settlement of the claim. The contention of the complainant is not believable that he received the amount under protest because the complainant never raised any objection/written any letter to the insurance company regarding receiving of less payment. Apart of this the complainant filed this complaint after laps of about 8 months after receiving the claim. In view of this the complainant by its own conduct lost his right to plead that he did not accept the offer in full and final settlement of its claim against the opposite party. Besides this we are of the firm view that the loss assessed by the surveyor is genuine/believable because surveyor is a best judge to assess the loss. 
6.    In view of the above said discussion and case  law (Supra) we are of the view that the complainant has voluntarily accepted the claim amount of Rs.99,500/- as full and final settlement and the complainant has failed to establish that he was compelled by the opposite party to sign the discharge voucher because of fraud, mis-representation, pressure tactics or coercion etc. Hence, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to 
            Jagbir Singh Vs. OIC etc.
                    …7…
cost.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 16.6.2016

                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 
            Jagbir Singh Vs. OIC etc.
                    

Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for the complainant. 
        Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv.for the opposite parties.  
               Arguments heard.  To come up on  16.6.2016 for orders.
                                        President,
        Member              Member                              DCDRF/Jind
                                        10.6.2016

Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for the complainant. 
        Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv.for the opposite parties.  
        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                                     President,
        Member              Member                              DCDRF/Jind
                                          16.6.2016