BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 405/1999 Filed on 17.08.1999 Dated : 30.07.2009 Complainant:
D.S. Dinesh, S/o Somasundaram, Darsan, Plamoodu, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Kunnukuzhi Suresh) Opposite party:
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Malankara Buildings, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. M. Nizamudeen)
This complaint remanded by the Hon'ble State Commission having been heard on 30.05.2009, the Forum on 30.07.2009 delivered the following: ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT This complaint is remanded by the Hon'ble State Commission with direction to consider the question whether the discharge voucher precludes the complainant from making any further claim towards the repair charges of the vehicle. The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant insured the Tata Sumo No. KL-01 M 1551 with the opposite party on 30.03.1998 vide policy No. 100401/31/040/11/65418/97 and Certificate No. 65418 (comprehensive policy), that the said vehicle met with an accident at Sathoor in Virudhu Nagar in Tamil Nadu on 31.12.1998, that complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 50,549/- as “Own Damage”claim on 01.02.1999 along with the estimate of repairs from Benz Motors, Muttathara, Thiruvananthapuram, that opposite party had issued a cheque for Rs. 33,000/- only and that complainant demanded to pay the balance amount, but opposite party denied it. A registered notice was issued to opposite party on 04.05.1999 demanding to pay the balance of the claim of Rs. 17,549/-, that opposite party sent a reply notice on 28.05.1999 stating that complainant is not entitled to get the amount other than what has been sanctioned and that has been accepted by the complainant. The action of the insurance company in reducing an amount of Rs. 17,549/- and allowing Rs. 33,000/- is deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 17,549/- towards the balance amount and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant had accepted an amount of Rs. 33,000/- from the opposite party and executed a discharge voucher stating that the complainant had accepted the said amount in full and final discharge of the claims put forward by him. On receipt of the claim application, opposite party deputed an independent licensed surveyor to assess the loss. After considering the said survey report and the bills furnished by the complainant, opposite party sanctioned an amount of Rs. 33,000/- to the complainant which was accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement and complainant signed the discharge voucher dated 10.03.1999. Complainant is not entitled to get the amount of Rs. 17,549/- as claimed in the complaint. Complainant is debarred from claiming any further amount and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the discharge voucher precludes the complainant from making any further claim towards the repair charge of the vehicle? Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 17549/- towards the balance amount? Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation? If so, at what amount?
In support of the complaint, complainant has been examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked. Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite party. In rebuttal, opposite party has been examined as DW1 and Exts. D1 to D3 were marked. Opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant. Points (i) to (iii):- This complaint remanded by the Hon'ble State Commission vide order dated 03.07.2003 in Appeal No. 947/2001 with direction to consider the question whether Ext. D1 discharge voucher precludes the complainant from making any further claim towards repair charges of the vehicle. The case of the complainant is that his vehicle Tata Sumo KL-01 M 1551 met with an accident on 31.10.1998, that he claimed an amount of Rs. 54,549/- as 'own damage' claim on 01.02.1999 along with the estimate of repairs from M/s Benz Motors and necessary vouchers and bills, but opposite party had issued a cheque for Rs. 33,000/-. The main plea in the version is that complainant has accepted an amount of Rs. 33,000/- from the opposite party and executed a Ext. D1 discharge voucher stating that the complainant has accepted the said amount in full and final discharge of the claim put forward by him and that the complainant is debarred from claiming any further amount. Ext. D1 is the said voucher dated 10.03.1999 executed by the complainant. As per Ext. D1 voucher, complainant had accepted an amount of Rs. 33,000/- from the opposite party in full and final discharge of claim. Complainant also admitted the receipt of the said amount from the opposite party. This complaint is seen filed on 17.08.1999. Complainant has no case that the said amount was received under protest. It is pertinent to note that the said amount was received by the complainant on 10.03.1999 by Ext. D1. There was no protest simultaneously or immediately after the acceptance of the said amount. There is no pleading in the complaint that the said amount was received by the complainant due to undue influence, coercion and fraud. This complaint is seen filed after 5 months from the date of receipt of the said amount without protest as full and final bill. Ext. P3 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 04.05.1999. Even in the said notice complainant never stated that he was forced to give voucher in full and final settlement of the claim. He has not alleged fraud or undue influence or any kind of pressure being brought upon him by the opposite party. Opposite party made reliance of the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Srinivas Trading Company reported in II2002) CPJ III(NC) wherein it was held that the consumer Fora could not go beyond the settlement, in the absence of undue influence, coercion and fraud. It is further to be noted that this complaint is seen filed after a lapse of 5 months from the date of receipt of the said amount in full and final settlement of the claim. In the light of evidence available on records, we do not find that any case has been made out for this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act to go behind such full and final settlement. The protest lodged by the complainant was not simultaneous with the execution of full and final settlement receipt neither it followed such execution immediately nor was any reason like undue influence, coercion or fraud being exercised by the complainant pleaded. In the light of these situations and in the light of the law discussed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Srinivas Trading Company reported in II2002) CPJ III(NC), we find the execution of discharge voucher (Ext. D1) precludes the complainant from making any further claim towards repair charges of the vehicle. In the light of the finding on the first point, we need not discuss other points under consideration. In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of July 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 405/1999 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Dinesh II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Certificate of Insurance dated 30.03.1998 P2 - Copy of the letter dated 01.02.1999 issued to opposite party. P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 04.05.1999 issued to opposite party. P4 - Postal receipt dated 04.05.1999. P4(a) - Acknowledgement card. P5 - Reply notice dated 28.05.1999. III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : DW1 - T.B. Jayaprakash IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Receipt dated 10.03.1999 issued by opposite party. D2 - Assessment sheet for vehicle No. KL-01 M 1551. D3 - Private and Confidential Motor Re-Inspection Report dated 06.02.1999. PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
