DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 144 of 7.4.2016
Decided on: 7.9.2017
Dr.Kulbir Kaur wife of Dr.Ravinder Pal Singh , H.No.22-A,Corner View Colony, Gurudwaran Sahib Road, Patiala ( Earlier Director Life Care Society, Corner View Colony, Gurudawara Dukhniwaran Sahib, Patiala)
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. SCO 36-37, 1st and 2nd Floor, Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co.Plot No.2, DLF Building, Tower-F, 1st Floor, I.T.Park, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Registered office Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001, through its M.D.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.A.S.Saran,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta,Advocate,counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Dr.Kulbir Kaur, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay the balance amount of Rs.3,65,631/- out of the total amount of Rs.3,93,221/- ;
- To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of lodging of the claim and also costs of the complaint and
- To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
-
The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. That the complainant is the registered owner of car make Toyota Innova bearing registration No.PB-11-A-1255 which was duly insured with the OPs vide policy No.2010542311008810 for the period from 29.12.2014 to 28.12.2015. The said vehicle was stolen from outside the premises of the complainant on 21.1.2015. In this regard, FIR No.19 dated 22.1.2015 under Section 379 IPC was lodged with P.S.Tripuri Town, Patiala. The complainant also intimated the OPs about the theft of the vehicle and also lodged the claim with them. But the OPs vide letter dated 28.4.2015 repudiated her claim. Lateron the stolen vehicle was recovered by the police of P.S.Sadar, Rohtak in FIR No.123 dated 6.3.2014 under Section 302 IPC . She got the said vehicle released under supardari from the court of JMIC, Patiala and was handed over to her by P.S.Tripuri, Patiala in damaged and deteriorated condition. She took the vehicle in question to the authorized service station of Toyota Vehicles at Patiala for getting it repaired but they demanded heavy amount for the repair of the said vehicle. Ultimately, she got the vehicle repaired from Guru Kirpa Motors Devigarh Road, near Vaddi Nadi, Patiala and paid an amount of Rs.3,93,221/- for the repair of the same. Thereafter, she lodged the claim with the OPs and requested for making the payment of the amount so spent by her on the repair of the vehicle in question. The OPs vide letter dated 17.12.2015 demanded certain documents from the complainant which she duly submitted to them. She was surprised on transferred of the amount of Rs.27,590/- in her account on 28.1.2016 by the OPs through NEFT Reliance Gen. which is against the terms and conditions of the policy.It is stated that the entire amount so spent by her on the repair of the car was not paid to her till today inspite of making somany requests in this regard to the OPs. The act and conduct of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service for which she has been suffering from mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written version. It is admitted that the complainant had obtained the Insurance policy bearing No.2010542311008810 for the period from 29.12.2014 to 28.12.2015. It is stated that claim was processed by the company and the same was found was not maintainable on account of delay of 39 days in intimating the claim to the insurance company as the incidence was occurred on 1.1.2014 whereas the OPs was intimated on 1.3.2015 and also on account of left the vehicle in question unattended on the roadside without lock. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 28.4.2015.Thereafter, the complainant again intimated with regard to the tracing/recovery of the stolen vehicle from Rohtak and getting released the same on Supardari, in a very bad accidental condition. The said claim was duly processed vide claim No.31150552523. The surveyor appointed by the insurance company assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.27590/-which was duly paid to the complainant who has given discharge voucher of claim settlement without any protest. There is no amount due and payable to the complainant in lieu of full and final settlement of claim.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.
The ld.counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Amit Chawla,Manager alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP5.No more evidence was led by the OPs and the same was closed by order.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that the car of the complainant was stolen on 21.1.2015 and same was recovered by the police on 6.3.2015 in a damaged condition . Complainant got it released from the court of JMIC, Patiala on superdari and got it repaired from Guru Kirpa Motors, Patiala and paid a sum of Rs.3.93,221/-. Thereafter he lodged the claim with the OPs. The OPs instead of paying the repair charges of Rs.3,93,221/- had transferred a meager amount of Rs.27,590/- on 28.1.2016 in her account. The Ops thus be directed to pay the remaining amount to the complainant. The ld.counsel for the Ops has submitted that on receipt of the claim intimation, they deputed the surveyor/Investigator to assess the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.27,590/-which was duly paid to the complainant who signed the discharge voucher as full and full settlement of her claim. We have perused the copy of discharge voucher,Ex.OP3 and found that it is duly signed by the complainant voluntarily as full and final settlement of her claim and also subrogated all her rights and remedies to the company in respect of the loss/damage . It may be stated that it is not the case of the complainant that the discharge voucher has been got signed from her by the OPs under any un due influence or coercion. Once the complainant has signed the discharge voucher, Ex.OP3 as full and final settlement of her claim and also subrogated all her rights and remedies to the company in respect of the loss/damage then she has no occasion to file the complaint. In the case of Eggro Paper Moulds Limited Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1(2016) CPJ 404 (NC), it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that “Matter finally stands settled between parties and Commission has no power to interfere with that settlement”
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly without any order as to costs. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:7.9.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
