BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Nar Singh s/o Raghbir Singh, H.No.1574/1, Top Floor, V & P.O. Burail, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-178, First Floor, Sector 38, Chandigarh, above HDFC Bank, through its Manager.

                   ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the  complainant.                                    

Sh.Sanjeev Goyal, Counsel for OP

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                 The vehicle of the complainant, Tavera bearing Regd.No.CH-02-1893, insured with OP - Insurance Company vide Annexure C-2, met with an accident on 1.6.2011 near Mandi (H.P.) and damaged badly. A DDR about the said accident was got registered vide Annexure C-3. Thereafter, the vehicle was got repaired for a total sum of Rs.1,23,500/-, whereas the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89,521.25ps only.  However, the OP, instead of paying Rs.89,521.25ps, as assessed by the surveyor, had paid a sum of Rs.65,672/- only through cheque Annexure C-5. Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

2.                OP filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case. It is stated that the surveyor initially assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89521.25ps which included the expenses covered under IMT.23 (cover for lamps tyres/tubes, mudguards, bonnet/side parts, bumpers headlights and paintwork). Thereafter, the surveyor vide report dated 16.8.2011, finally assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.65,672/-, after deducting the amount of parts covered under IMT.23, salvage value of  Rs.3600/-, compulsory excess of Rs.500/-, No Claim Bonus of Rs.1676/- as per terms and conditions of the policy and accordingly, the amount of Rs.65,672/- was paid to the complainant, which he accepted towards full & final settlement of his claim. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.                The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the vehicle bearing Regd.No.CH-02-1893, insured with OP - Insurance Company vide Annexure C-2, met with an accident on 1.6.2011 near Mandi (H.P.) and damaged badly. A DDR with regard to the accident was got registered vide Annexure - C-3. The vehicle was got repaired for a total sum of Rs.1,23,500/-, whereas, the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89,521.25ps only.  It was lastly argued that the OP, instead of paying Rs.89,521.25ps, as assessed by the surveyor, had paid a sum of Rs.65,672/- only through cheque dated 13.9.2011 - Annexure C-5.

6.             The learned Counsel for the OP contended that the surveyor initially assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89521.25ps which included the expenses covered under IMT.23. Thereafter, the surveyor vide report dated 16.8.2011 – Annexure A-3, assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.65,672/-, after deducting the amount of parts covered under IMT.23, salvage value of  Rs.3600/-, compulsory excess of Rs.500/-, No Claim Bonus of Rs.1676/-, per terms and conditions of the policy and thereafter, the amount of Rs.65,672/- was paid to the complainant, which he accepted towards full & final settlement of his claim.

7.                The point which calls determination from his court is whether the complainant has accepted the amount of Rs.65,672/- towards full and final settlement of the claim. The answer to this is in the affirmative.

8.                The complainant has not disputed the payment of Rs.65,672/- made through cheque dated 13.9.2011 - Annexure C-5. Annexure A-5 at page No.22 of the reply is the Claim Discharge-cum-Satisfaction Voucher  and its perusal makes it clear that the complainant has received the sum of Rs.65,672/- from the OP towards full and final settlement of the claim under Policy No.105009/31/11/002424 in respect of damage/loss of CH-02-1893 on 01.06.2011.

9.                The learned Counsel for the complainant did not dispute the signatures of the complainant on the said Claim Discharge-cum-Satisfaction Voucher – Annexure A-5. He only contended that Annexure A-5 - Claim Discharge-cum-Satisfaction Voucher did not bear the revenue stamp. This limb of argument is not available to the learned Counsel for the OP as the complainant himself has admitted the payment of Rs.65,672/- vide cheque dated 13.9.2011 - Annexure C-5. Thus, affixing or non-affixing of the revenue stamp on the said Claim Discharge-cum-Satisfaction Voucher will not effect the merits of this case.

10.              Now, it is established on record that the complainant had received the amount of Rs.65,672/- in full and final settlement of the claim from the OP with regard to the claim in question. There is no allegation from the side of the complainant that the Claim Discharge-cum-Satisfaction Voucher – Annexure A-5 has been obtained by the OP by exercising fraud, undue influence or by misrepresentation. The complainant has given the clean discharge to the OP without any qualification vide Annexure A-5, signifying its receipt in full and final settlement of the claim. Reliance placed on 2006, CTJ 1065 (Supreme Court)(CP) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd.

11.           Now, the next question to be considered is as to whether after giving a clean discharge receipt by receiving the amount of  Rs.65,672/- and signing the voucher, the complainant can maintain the present complaint. The answer to this is in the negative.

12.              As already noticed, the payment of Rs.65,672/-  had been made by the OP to the complainant on 1.6.2011 and, thereafter, he gave the clean discharge to the OP without any qualification and in token thereof also signed the receipt Annexure – A-5 in full and final settlement of the claim, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.

13.              Since, the complaint is liable to fail on this sole ground, therefore, it will be a vain attempt to go into the further details of the matter on merits. Consequently, it is held that the complaint is not maintainable. In view of this, it is also held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

14.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

15.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.