Haryana

Panchkula

CC/206/2015

ROOP SINGH PANWAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                    

Consumer Complaint No	:	206 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	30.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	03.02.2016

                                                                                          

Roop Singh Panwar aged 57 years s/o Sh.Sadhu Singh, R/o House No.115-B, Housing Board Complex, Sector-14, Panchkula, Distt. Panchkula.

 

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

 

1.       The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCO No.325, 2^nd Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula.

2.       The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through  its Regional Manager, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Jatin Sherawat, Advocate, for the complainant. 

Mr.Ram Avtar, Advocate, for the Ops.

 

ORDER

 

 

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he insured his Maruti Alto K10 bearing registration No.HR-29-F-0081 Model 2012 bearing chassis No. MA3EABE1S00415256, Engine No.K10BN4469790 with the Ops under the policy No.23131/31/2014/10487 (Annexure C-2) for the period from 16.12.2013 to 15.12.2014 with premium of Rs.6,335/-. The vehicle in question was with the son of the complainant at Noida as the son of the complainant is working at HCL at Noida. On 16.08.2014, the complainant went to Noida to meet his son and on the same day i.e. 16.08.2014, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen from Sector-56, Noida (UP). The complainant lodged the FIR No.1118 (Annexure C-12) dated 17.08.2014. Thereafter, the complainant informed the Ops about the theft on 19.08.2014 (Annexure C-1). On 26.08.2014, the Ops issued a request letter to the complainant to comply with the formalities (Annexure C-10). After receiving the letter, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the Ops. The complainant also submitted the No Trace Final Report of the vehicle to the Ops. After submission of the documents, the Ops had sanctioned the approval to the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,48,900 whereas the vehicle was insured to the tune of Rs.2,67,200/- vide cover note No.168455. The complainant objected to the claim sanctioned by the Ops to the tune of Rs.2,48,900/- instead of Rs.2,67,200/- and the Ops refused to sanction the claim of Rs.2,67,200/-. Thereafter, the Ops threatened the complainant that either he had to accept Rs.2,48,900/- or otherwise he would not get anything. The complainant was in need of money and on seeing the difficulty of the complainant, the Ops forcibly got the documents signed from the complainant for the claim of Rs.2,48,900/- (Annexure C-11). The complainant also requested the Ops to release the balance claim amount of Rs.18,300/- but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.   Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with Branch office IV, Sector-22, Chandigarh. It is submitted that claim of Rs.2,48,911/- has been approved and paid the claim payment vide voucher dated 14.08.2015 by the Ops after submission of consent & discharge voucher by the complainant in full and final satisfaction of claim. It is submitted that as per voucher received from Berkley Automobiles Ltd. by the complainant and submitted to the Ops, the total invoice value of vehicle was Rs.3,12,389/- less 20% depreciation on first renewal i.e. Rs.62,477/-, the total value of the vehicle comes to Rs.2,49,911/- and after applying Excess Clause of Rs.1,000/-, the total amount comes to Rs.2,48,911/- which was approved by the competent authority and paid to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant never objected to the claim approved by the competent authority to the extent of Rs.2,48,911/-. It is submitted that everything was settled in most cordial and amicable atmosphere and only thereafter, the complainant had submitted the consent and discharge voucher to the Ops. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Ops has tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record and have also considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the Ops.
5. It is not disputed that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen during subsistence of the insurance and it is also not disputed that the claim had already been settled and the complainant has already received the approved amount to the tune of Rs.2,48,900/-  after executing discharge voucher as is evident through Ex.R1 as full and final settlement. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has not signed the discharged voucher voluntarily and his signature was obtained under coercion because and even he had not received the amount as full and final.  Perusal of the complaint, documents and affidavit furnished by the complainant during the proceedings of this complaint, we are of the considered opinion that there is nothing on record to show that complainant was compelled by the OPs at any stage to settle the claim at lesser amount than the claim made by him. There is also not an iota of evidence on record to show that any official of the OPs compelled the complainant to settle the claim at lesser amount.   In the case in hand, it can be easily held that complainant was not a victim of any kind of duress or coercion exercised by the Insurance Company because while receiving the  amount, at no point of time, the complainant had even whispered that the Insurance Company was exercising duress and coercion to accept the said amount as full and final settlement.  The complainant has failed to prove on the case file that any duress and coercion for accepting the amount as full and final settlement was made by the insurance company, therefore, the complainant is barred to file the present complaint. Moreover, the complainant has not raised the said issue with the Ops. On this point reliance can be taken from judgment dated 03.07.2014 of Hon’ble National Commission passed in case law titled as M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/s Nissan Electronics passed in first Appeal No.424 of 2008 and case law titled as Sidra Rama Thombare Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited III (2009) CPJ 158.  It is strange that by way of the present complaint the complainant wants to repudiate the discharge voucher duly signed by him. This clearly shows malafide intention on the part of the complainant in filing the present complaint. It is well settled that provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not meant for enrichment of the consumer. Once complainant has received the amount unconditionally, under these circumstances he ceases to be ‘Consumer’ as per the Act. The privity of contract or relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties if any, came to an end the moment complainant accepted the amount unconditionally.  On this point, reliance can be taken from case law titled as  Upendra Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. I (2013) CPJ 595 (NC). In Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India  (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 311, Apex Court has observed that It is well settled that an offer may be accepted by conduct. But conduct would only amount to acceptance if it is clear that the offeree did the act with the intention (actual or apparent) of accepting the offer. The decisions which we have noticed above also proceed on this principle. Each case must rest on its own facts. The courts must examine the evidence to find out whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the conduct of the “offeree” was such as amounted to an unequivocal acceptance of the offer made. If the fact of the case disclose that there was no reservation in signifying acceptance by conduct, it must follow that the offer has been accepted by the conduct. On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that the “offeree” had reservation in accepting the offer, his conduct may not amount to acceptance of the offer in terms of Section 8 of the Contract Act.    In the present case the complainant has failed to prove on case file that he had reserved his right by accepting the payment under protest.
6.  Hence, in view of above discussed factual as-well-as legal position, we are of the considered view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. It is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

 

Announced

03.02.2016        S.P.ATTRI    ANITA KAPOOR               DHARAM PAL

                               MEMBER          MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                             PRESIDENT