IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.
Dated this 21st day of September 2016
Complaint No. 539/2014
Present: 1) Shri.B.V.Gudli, President 2) Smt. Sunita, Member
-***-
Complainant: Bhimagouda S/o.Muttengouda Patil,
Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Hadignal village, Tq.Gokak, Dist.
Belagavi.
(By Sri.R.C.Patil, Adv)
V/s.
Opponents: 1. The Branch Manager,
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Servicing Office, Shikshana Vishwasta,
Mandala Shikshaka Bhavan, College Road,
Belgaum 509010.
2. The Manager,
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Strategic Business Unit “Sudev Plaza”,
3rd Floor, Opp.Sri Laxmi Temple,
Dajiban Peth, Hubli 580009.
( By Sri.B.N.Chougala, Advocate)
(Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)
ORDER
U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service in balance claim amount due to be paid by the OPs.
2) The O.P.1 and 2 appeared through counsels and filed written version.
3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit, written argument and produced some documents. On the other hand OPs also filed their affidavit and certain documents are produced on their side.
4) For both the parties written argument are filed. We have also heard on both sides and perused the records.
5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps & entitled to the reliefs sought?
6) Our finding on the point is partly in negative, for the following reasons.
:: R E A S O N S ::
7) On perusal of contents of complaint and affidavit of the complainant, the complainant has alleged that he had purchased Tractor bearing No. KA 49 / T 8641 in the month of May 2013 & the said Tractor was duly insured with OP.1 bearing policy No.83957257 valid from 14.05.2013 to 13.05.2014. When the complainant was driving the said tractor on Gokak Maldinni road when he was proceeding towards Mamdapur, accident took place on Maldinni Cross. After the accident the complainant informed the fact of accident to OP.1. The OP1 after receiving the information deputed its surveyor and loss assessor to the inspect the vehicle and directed the complainant to repair the said tractor. The complainant left for repairs to the said tractor with Suhas Motors, Opposite to APMC Gate, Gokak and the tractor was repaired and delivered to the complainant
8) The complainant has paid the charges to the tune of Rs.1,45,751/- under its retail invoice and he further paid Rs.6,700/- under tax invoice Bill No.16960 dtd.13.12.2013 and for fixing the stickers etc., the complainant paid Rs.250/-, Rs.1,500/- to Krishna Enterprises of Yargatti in respect of the said vehicle and thus the complainant in all has spent Rs.1,54,201/- towards the said repairs. The complainant thereafter submitted claim for reimbursement of the expenses incurred for the said repairs of damaged tractor to OP.1 as the said tractor was duly insured. In turn the OP.1 has issued an account payee cheque for Rs.74,52/- to the complainant towards the above said reimbursement of amount towards damages caused to the tractor of complainant which was less than half of the claim amount actually spent by the complainant. The complainant further submits that the complainant being unsatisfied with the amount of reimbursement made by OP.1, nearly 10 times the complainant personally approached OP1 office requesting for reimbursement of the claim amount. But all the times the OP.1 has failed to show inclination to settle the dues liable to be paid to complainant as the vehicle being duly insured and valid and effect at the time of making the above claim. It is submitted that the complainant has all the way spent Rs.1,000/- on each of the occasion. The complainant further submits that the OP.1 has failed to make payment of balance claim amount due to be paid to the complainant. Hence the complainant was constrained to get issue legal notice to the OPs.1 and 2 on 08.03.2013. After service of notice the OPs failed to pay the balance amount which clearly goes to show that the OPs have committed deficiency in service to the complainant and also there is unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the complainant constrained to file this complaint against OPs alleging deficiency of service on the part of OPs.
9) On perusal of contents of objections and evidence affidavit of Deputy Manager of OP1 the OPs have admitted that the complainant had purchased the tractor bearing No.KA 49/T08641 and the same was duly insured with the branch office OP-1. The OPs denied the contents of the complaint allegations. The OPs have further contended that, after the accident the OP.1 received the information regarding the accident they deputed qualified licensed IRDA licensed surveyor Mr.K.R.Mahesh Kumar to assess the loss. As per the insurance policy issued to the customer and guidelines of India Motor Tariff, independent surveyor has assessed the loss and recommended for Rs.74,520/- as net amount payable to insured. The OPs have settled the entire amount as per govt. license surveyor recommendations and further contended that, after the estimation of damages the claim was settled for Rs.74,52/- and the claim amount has been paid to the complainant. Insured has agreed for the amount as full and final settlement and voluntarily given discharge voucher to the company and also taken delivery of the vehicle. The complainant while receiving the claim amount has never disputed as to the quantum of compensation and has neither denied in receiving the claim amount and further contended that complainant has admitted in his complaint that he has received the amount of Rs.74,52/-. If the complainant was not satisfied with the amount of compensation paid to him, or if the quantum of amount spent by him for repair of the tractor was much more than the amount paid to him, then he could have raised objection receive the compensation of only Rs.74,520/- or he could have denied to receive the amount. He has received it happily as the amount paid was equal to the amount of damages caused to the vehicle or for the tune for which the complainant was eligible. Now he has filed this false complaint to drag the compensation amount from the OPs with bad motive. The OPs have contended that once the claim has been settled and the claim amount has been paid and received by complainant he cannot claim for the second time by filing the complaint claiming compensation for the damages for which he has already been paid and the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
10) On perusal of contents and allegations of the complainant in the complaint and in the affidavit of Deputy Manager of OP-1 the OPs admitted that the tractor bearing No.KA 49/T 8641 was purchased by the complainant and the same was duly insured with OP.1. After receiving the information of accident the OPs deputed technically qualified IRDA licensed surveyor Mr.Mohan Kumar to assess the loss and after the said Mr.Mohan Kumar inspecting the vehicle submitted his report on 16.12.2013 and assessed the value of damages to the vehicle Rs.74,520-84. On perusal of contents of the complaint the complainant has admitted that the OP-1 issued an account payee cheque for Rs.74,520/- to the complainant towards the said reimbursement of amount towards damages to the vehicle. On perusal of the claim discharge cum satisfactory voucher the complainant has received the amount of Rs.74,520/- and executed voucher and he put his signature on the said voucher. The complainant has n ot objected to receive Rs.74,520/- towards reimbursement of damages caused to the tractor. On perusal of surveyor’s report the surveyor has assessed loss and damages to the tractor to the tune of Rs.74,520/- and the said amount was received by the complainant without any objections and he voluntarily signed on the discharge voucher and taken delivery of the said vehicle. At the time of receiving the amount of Rs.74,520/- he has not taken the amount under protest and also he has not mentioned the said fact in the discharge voucher. As per the decision reported in 2016 (1) CPR 70 (NC) between Nakoda Dying weaving Mill & another vs. Oriental Insurance Co. & another, as per the said decision “having accepted the assessment made by surveyor and taken payment in full and final settlement of claim, estopped from claiming further amount from insurance company”. In the present case on hand the complainant has received the amount of Rs.74,520/- as assessed by the surveyor i.e. full and final settlement of the claim, the complainant is estopped from claiming further amount as he has claimed excess amount from OPs. The above said decision is applicable to the case on hand. Without objection the complainant has received the cheque for Rs.74,520/- and he has signed on discharge voucher. The complainant has agreed for the amount as full and final settlement and voluntarily given discharge voucher to the company and took delivery of the vehicle. Under such circumstances he cannot claim excess amount from OPs.
11) Considering the entire facts, contention of parties as well as material on record complainant has failed to deficiency of service on the part of OPs.
12) Accordingly the following
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 21st day of September 2016)
Member President.
msr*
