Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/6/2014

The New India Assurance Company Limited Through D.M. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Razzak Khan s/o Madar Khan - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Saxena

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

APPEAL NO: 06/2014

 

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Behild old Power House, Alwar through Divisional Manager

Vs.

Razzak Khan s/o Mr.Madar Khan r/o village Choroti Pahad, Tehsil Ramgarh,Alwar Rajasthan

 

Date of Order 8.4.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal-Member

 

Mr.Sandeep Saxena counsel for the appellant

Mrs. Mumtaz counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

2

DCF Alwar dated 12.11.2013 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant has taken an insurance of his vehicle RJ 02 GA 4759 from the appellant company which was effective from 20.7.2011 to 19.7.2012. This vehicle met with an accident on 11.1.2012. The insurance company appointed M/s. Apex Assessors Pvt. Ltd. who assessed the loss at Rs. 4,07,995/-. The company paid a sum of Rs.2,16,800/- to the complainant through ECS. The complainant filed a complaint for recovery of the balance amount on the basis of survey report who assessed the loss at Rs. 4,07,955/-. The company placed a discharge voucher before the learned DCF dated 16.7.2012 and submitted that complainant had agreed to receive Rs. 2,16,800/- in full and final settlement of his claim and hence no additional claim can be filed by the complainant and there is no consumer dispute when the question of adequacy of the claim is involved. The learned counsel for the company has also argued that the complainant has not replaced cabin shell, therefore, Rs. 2,81,000/- have been deducted out of the amount assessed by the surveyor.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has cited before us the following judgments in support of the arguments that once the complainant has accepted the claim amount in full and final

3

 

settlement of his claim he is estopped from raising further objections:-

 

Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India (2006-3) PLR 76 (SC), FA No. 1853/2011 Pratap Singh Vs. NIA dated 14.10.13 RSCDRC, RP No.219/09 New India Assurance Co. Vs. M/s. Combined Medical Institute Pvt. Ltd. Decided by NCDRC on 17.3.15, Complaint No. 166/2010 KK Jewels Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. decided by NCDRC on 5.7.2013, RP No.2031/12 Ankur Surana Vs. United India Insurance Co. decided by NCDRC on 16.1.2013, FA No.692/05 M/s.Avon Automobiles Vs. National Insurance Co. decided by NCDRC on 4.7.12, RP no. 3858/13 Morteza Yousefi Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. decided by NCDRC on 25.9.14, 2009 STPL pg. 2734 NCDRC, RP no. 1032/12 Jiwan Spinners Pvt.Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. decided by NCDRC on 22.1.13, RP no. 2339/12 New India Assurance Co. Vs. L.B.Lal decided by NCDRC on 24.9.13, Union of India & ors. Vs. Master Construction Co. J. Aftab Alam & J. R.M.Lodha ) New Delhi April 25,2011, RP no. 3712/09 Gurmeet Kaur Vs. LIC decided by NCDRC on 10.3.15.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that

4

 

alleged discharge voucher was never signed by the complainant. He has no knowledge of the amount being credited to his account while the learned counsel for the company has argued that the complainant had given a blank cancelled cheque in support of his account number and he knew that the amount has been credited to his account and discharge voucher was signed by him in presence of his financier.

 

We have heard both the counsels. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the company clearly lay down the principle that in absence of any fraud,misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion being exercised by the insurance company, the complainant cannot claim any additional amount from the company once he has given discharge voucher to the company in full and final settlement of the claim.

 

In view of these judgments we have perused the record. There are two discharge vouchers on record. Two photo copies of the two original discharge vouchers have been produced. There is no satisfactory explaination why two original discharge vouchers were got signed from the complainant. The learned counsel for the company has argued that two vouchers are executed and one voucher is sent to the accounts department. We are unable to

5

 

accept this argument. There cannot be two separate original discharge vouchers. In one of the vouchers submitted by the company, no claim number is mentioned and after carefully scrutinizing the voucher we suspect that whether these vouchers were discharged by the complainant or not. On perusal by the naked eye it is obvious that the signatures on the voucher and signatures on the other documents of the complainant markedly differ. Even these two discharge vouchers have been differently signed by the different officers of the finance company. How is it possible that vouchers on behalf of the finance company were signed by two different persons on the same date. Thus, these discharge vouchers on these grounds cannot be believed and raise reasonable suspicion in favour of the complainant. It is possible that these discharge vouchers might have been discharged by officers of the finance company who were eager to receive their instalments which had become over due, due to accident of the vehicle and there seems to be a posibility that complainant was not informed of this amount and amount was directly credited to his account.

 

The second question is whether the company was right in deducting an amount of Rs.2,81,000/- from the amount assessed by the surveyor that “cabin shell” was not replaced. The company

6

 

has not placed on record any report of the final inspection conducted by any surveyor appointed by the company to this effect. It was the surveyor who could have reported that whether the “Cabin Shell” has been replaced or not. In absence of this report we cannot accept the arguments advanced by the insurance company.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has cited before us 1(2012) CPJ 420 (NC) (H.C.Saxena Vs. New India Assurance Co. ), III (2008) CPJ 278 (NC) National Insurance Co. Vs. Shree Shyam Cold Storage ) on the point that surveyor report should be given due importance.

 

We are of the view that the complainant was misrepresented and was not informed of the amount being credited to his account. He was not clearly informed that the amount of “Cabin Shell” is being deducted from the assessed amount as he has not replaced it. No inspection was got conducted by the company and the signatures on the discharge vouchers seem to be different from the signatures of the complainant, and why two discharge vouchers were prepared is also not acceptable. There cannot be two original discharge vouchers of which photo copies have been submitted by the

7

 

company. The complainant can very well agitate on the ground of fraud,misrepresentation etc. and we find no force in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. The order of the learned DCF is maintained and order be complied within one month.

 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm