Haryana

StateCommission

A/365/2015

RAJESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM GENERL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SANCHIT PUNIA

15 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  :      365 of 2015

Date of Institution:      22.04.2015

Date of Decision :       15.09.2015

 

 

Rajesh son of Sh. Karambir, resident of VPO, Baganwala, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Opposite HDFC Bank, U.P – Stair Charlie Outlaw, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Haryana – 136027 through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, E-8, EPIP, EIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur – 302022 (Rajasthan) through its Managing Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Sh. Rajesh-complainant in person with Sh. Sanchit Punia, Advocate.

                             Sh. V.K. Arya, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated November 21^st, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Kaithal, whereby complaint filed by him seeking compensation on account of damage of his vehicle No.HR61A-8869 in a road accident, was dismissed.

2.      Rajesh-complainant (appellant) got his vehicle insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘Insurance Company’). During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle was damaged in the road accident. He submitted claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company did not settle the claim. 

3.      The Insurance Company pleaded that the claim was settled and it was agreed upon by the complainant to Rs.18,200/-, which the Insurance Company paid through cheque though the cheque was never encashed by him.  The complainant executed Discharge cum Satisfaction Voucher (Exhibit R-6) accepting the amount of Rs.18,200/- in full and final settlement of his claim. 

4.      Indisputably, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.18,200/- from the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of his claim.  He signed the Discharge cum Satisfaction Voucher (Exhibit R-6).

5.      It was not the case of the complainant that execution of the aforesaid receipt was obtained by the Insurance Company under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation etc.  So, he could not be allowed to reopen his claim.

6.      In National Insurance Co. Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.(2009) 1 SCC 267, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“25.   Where one of the parties to the contract issues a full and final discharge voucher (or no-dues certificate, as the case may be) confirming that he has received the payment in full and final satisfaction of all claims, and he has no outstanding claim, that amounts to discharge of the contract by acceptance of performance and the party issuing the discharge voucher/certificate cannot thereafter make any fresh claim or revive any settled claim nor can it seek reference to arbitration in respect of any claim.”

7.      In Aradhna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Through Sh. Ashok Avasthi, Managing Director Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2015 (2) CPR 482 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission after relying upon a judgment titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd, 2015 AIR SCW 67 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant had accepted the payment in full and final settlement of it’s claim.

8.      In the instant case no evidence has been produced by the complainant to show that there was misrepresentation, fraud or coercion on the part of the Insurance Company in paying the amount of Rs.18,200/-, rather, the same was received by him with free consent.

9.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further urged that the Insurance Company is ready to pay the amount of Rs.18,200/- through demand draft to the complainant.  

10.    Since the matter was fully satisfied, the Insurance Company shall pay the said amount of Rs.18,200/- to the complainant through demand draft within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.   

11.    In view of above, the appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Announced 15.09.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

UK