Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased one Tata Indigo ECS LX TDI car bearing Registration No.OR-01V-2691 under hire purchase agreement with OP No.3 and insured the said vehicle with OP Nos.1 and 2 for the period from 9.6.2012 to 8.6.2013 for Rs.5,51,104/-. On 15.4.2013 the vehicle met accident and FIR was lodged. Complainant filed the claim form before OP No.1. It is averred that surveyor was deputed by OP Nos. 1 and 2 who surveyed the vehicle and advised the complainant to repair the vehicle and submit the bill for payment. Accordingly, the complainant repaired the vehicle but the financer settled the amount with Rs.1,90,000/-. Since the vehicle has been damaged totallyand the insurer has not settled the claim as per repairing charges the complainant filed the consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
4. The OPs were set ex parte.
5. After hearing the complainant, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxxxxxxxx
The consumer case is allowed on ex parte against the OPs with cost. The OPs are directed to pay the rest of insured amount of Rs.3,61,104/- (Rupees Three lacs sixty one thousand one hundred four only) along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, failing which it will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The complainant is also at liberty to realize the same form the OP as per law, in case of failure by the OP to comply the order.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that after receiving the complaint, they have already settled the amount and the complainant has received the amount with full and final settlement. In support of his submission, he produced the documents. So, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order including the DFR.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant has borrowed amount from OP No.3. It is also revealed that the vehicle was insured with OP Nos. 1 and 2 covering the period from 9.6.2012 to 8.6.2013 for sum assured of Rs.5,51,104/-. It is also averredthat surveyor has already computed the loss for Rs.1,90,000/- and necessary affidavit shows that complainant has received the amount towards full and final settlement for Rs.1,90,000/-. As per the decision reported in 1993 CPR page 53 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of United India Insurancevrs. Ajmir Singh Cotton& General Mills observed that when the discharge voucher if executed voluntarily and the complainant had not alleged the execution under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or the like, then the consumer complaint would not lie and subsequently, also there is no cause of action survived.
9. With due regard to the decision, we are of the view that since the necessary voucher has already been filed, we find there is reason to interfere with the impugned order. As such the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.
The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
