BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 34 of 2015
Date of institution: 02.02.2015
Date of Decision: 17.09.2015
Lakhwinder Singh son of Harjit Singh, resident Broti Wala Mohalla, Sector 77, Sohana, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Oriental National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.20, 2nd Floor, Phase-1, Mohali through its Branch Manager Quiet Office 15, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.
2. Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mohali (2013-14) B-51, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Director.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri HBS Baidwan, counsel for the complainant.
Shri JP Nahar, counsel for OP No.1.
Shri Ashutosh Aggarwal, counsel for OP No.2.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) pay him Rs.2,27,510/- with interest 2 18% per annum till realisation.
(b) pay him Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
(c) pay him Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.
The case of the complainant is that he got insured his vehicle namely Toyota Fortuner bearing No. PB-09-S-3441 from OP No.1 vide policy valid from 29.11.2013 to 28.11.2014 Ex.C-2. The vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident and correspondence regarding this was done by OP No.2 with OP No.1. OP No.2 repaired the vehicle of the complainant by charging Rs.8,42,510/- which the complainant paid. OP No.1 paid only Rs.6,15,000/- to the complainant and did not pay anything despite protest by the complainant. The complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs to pay him the balance amount of Rs.2,27,510/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 01.08.2014 which the OPs have not paid to him till today. Hence this complaint.
2. Upon notice the OPs appeared and filed separate written statements. OP No.1 pleaded in the complaint that the complainant has already received the claim as full and final vide discharge voucher duly Ex.OP-1 duly signed by the complainant which was paid to the complainant as per survey report. The complainant never raised any protest and received Rs.6,15,000/- with consent. The vehicle was got repaired from the authorised dealer of M/s. Toyota Motors. The vehicle met with an accident on 28.05.2014 after 3 years and 3 months of its registration. The surveyor had allowed the damages which were consistent with the cause of mishap and disallowed which were not consistent with the cause of accident. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP No.2 in the reply has taken preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on its part and no cause of action arose to the complainant against it. The main grievance of the complainant is regarding receipt of deficient claim from OP No.1 and the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to claim any amount from OP No.2. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle came to OP No.2 on 04.06.2014 and after repair an invoice for an amount of Rs.8,42,510/- was raised on 30.07.2014 which was cleared by the complainant on 01.08.2014 by making payment in cash. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has also sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-6.
5. Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavits of B.S. Ahuja, its Dy. Manager and Amarjit Singh Duggal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor Ex.OP-1/1 and Ex.OP-1/2 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
6. Evidence of OP No.2 consists of affidavit of Anoop Gupta its authorised person Ex.OP-2/1 and copy of document Ex.OP-2/2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.
6. The grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that he has purchased the vehicle bearing No. PB-09-S-3441 from OP No.2 and got it ensured from OP No.1. The policy was in currency from 29.11.2013 to 28.11.2014 Ex.C-2. The vehicle met with an accident and after repairs the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and the OPs have honoured the claim to the tune of Rs.6,15,000/- against the total amount of Rs.8,42,510/- spent on repairs. The honouring of the claim by deficient amount by Rs.2,27,510/- is an act of deficiency in service and un fair trade practice.
7. The purchase of vehicle and its insurance is admitted by both the OPs. The factum of accident is also admitted by OP No.1. OP No.1 has further admitted the receipt of claim and honouring of the claim to the tune of Rs.6,15,000/- but denied deficiency in service as the claim has been fully honoured by OP No.1 as per the surveyor report and the complainant himself has given the discharge voucher Ex.OP-1 in lieu of full and final settlement of his claim. Therefore, once the full and final settlement of the claim vide discharge voucher Ex.OP-1, the consumer service provider relationship ceases and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
8. We have perused the document Ex.OP-1 wherein the complainant has put up his signatures as claimant on the discharge voucher against the policy in question and accepted a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- against the vehicle in question and there is no protest raised by the complainant on the discharge voucher. In the pleadings the complainant has no where pleaded coercion, fraud, undue influence exercised by the OPs while getting the discharge voucher signed from him.
9. It is well settled that once the amount is received towards full and final settlement for the claim, the complaint for rest of the amount is not maintainable as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balaji Medicos, 2013(4) CLT 99. In the complaint in hand, the discharge voucher Ex.OP-1 duly signed by the complainant without protest being full and final settlement of his claim is binding on the complainant and the grievance of the complainant for deficient amount of Rs.2,27,510/- is not maintainable.
10. In view of above discussion, the complaint being devoid of merits it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
September 17, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
