DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 348 of 7.9.2016
Decided on: 7.9.2017
Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh.Dev Raj, age 40 years, R/o Warraich Colony, Near Ravi Dass Gurudwara ,Samana, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
The IFCO-GOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., 5-C/1, Sheetal Complex, Ground Floor, Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
…………Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Rakesh Malhora,Adv.counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta,Adv.counsel for the opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Sanjay Kumar, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay Rs.20,100/-, deducted 25% illegally from Rs.80,000/-alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of theft till its realization;
- To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment ;
- To pay Rs.5000/-as penalty for committing deficiency in service
- To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses and
- To grant any other relief,which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Enfield Bullet Motorcycle, Model 2012 with Temp. Registration No.PB-11-AW-8837, having engine and chassis No.191251. The same was got insured from the OP vide insurance policy No.85618379 for the period from 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014 with insured declared value of Rs.80,000/- and paid Rs.1540/- as premium of the policy. The said motor cycle stolen on 20.1.2014 from outside his premises even being properly parked and locked.FIR No.17 dated 31.1.2014 was lodged with P.S.City Samana,District Patiala under Section 379 IPC.He also lodged the claim of theft with the OP who deputed its Investigator to whom the complainant submitted all the relevant papers. The police also submitted the untraced report.As per the advice of the OP,he got the RC of the impugned vehicle transferred from DTO, Patiala in the name of the OP.On 10.4.2015 he received a letter dated 7.4.2015 from the OP informing him with regard to the claim having approved to the tune of Rs.59,900/- under Sub Standard Basis after deducting 25% from IDV on account of delay to ITGI and re-opening of claim. After receipt of the letter, he approached the OP and requested not to deduct 25% from sum insured value of the motorcycle but they were adamant to settle the claim on sub standard basis, which is illegal, arbitrary and malafide. This act and conduct of the OP amounted to deficiency in service on its part which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him.Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objection that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands. On merits it is admitted that Motorcycle No.PB-11-AW-8837 bearing engine No.191251 and chassis No.191251 was insured with it vide insurance policy No.85618379 for the period from 21-31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014. It is stated that the motorcycle of the complainant was stolen on 30.1.2014 whereas he lodged the claim on 13.2.2014.The policy report was also lodged on 30.1.2014.There was considerable delay in intimating the insurance company and also lodging the report with the Police. On receipt of intimation of theft of motorcycle, it deputed Sh.R.N.Sharma, Investigator to investigate the loss.After consideration, the insurance company approved the claim on sub standard basis for Rs.59,900/-after deducting 25% on account of delay in intimation.The complainant gave his consent and accepted the amount in full and final settlement of the claim. In this regard a discharge voucher and letter of subrogation was also issued.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
The ld.counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Sanket Gupta, Vice President of OP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP11 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Admittedly, the motor cycle in question was duly insured with the OP for the period from 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014 for the IDV of Rs.80,000/- as is evident from the copy of certificate of insurance Ex.C1. From the copy of F.I.R. dated 31.1.2014,Ex.C2, it is evident that the said motor cycle was stolen on 20.1.2014. The grievance of the complainant is that the OP instead of paying him the total IDV of the motor cycle in question had paid only Rs.59,900/-on sub standard basis. On the contrary, the stand of the OP is that the motor cycle of the complainant was stolen on 20.1.2014, whereas he informed the insurance company regarding the theft of the motor cycle on 13.2.2014 i.e. after a delay of about 24 days. The surveyor, appointed by the insurance company has approved the claim to the tune of Rs.59,900/- which the complainant has accepted as full and final satisfaction of his claim in lieu of which he has executed discharge voucher Ex.OP10 and has also given a letter of subornation,Ex.OP8, to the OP, as such the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. We have perused the copy of discharge voucher,Ex.OP10 and found that it is duly signed by the complainant. It may be stated that it is not the case of the complainant that the discharge voucher has been got signed from him by the OP under any un due influence or coercion. Once the complainant, after receiving the amount of Rs.59,900/- from the OP as full and final settlement has signed the discharge voucher and has given the letter of subrogation to the insurance company, then he has no occasion to file this complaint. In the case of Eggro Paper Moulds Limited Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1(2016) CPJ 404 (NC), it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that , “Matter finally stands settled between parties and Commission has no power to interfere with that settlement”
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly without any order as to costs. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:7.9.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
