Haryana

Karnal

159/12

Amer nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Raj Kumar

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.159 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.:16.03.2012

                                                              Date of decision:13.01.2017

 

Amar Nath son of Shri Deep Chand resident of village Batali, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.

                                                                              ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1.The Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. LTd. SCO 237, 2^nd floor, sector-12, Karnal.

2. The Managing Director, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. 6^th floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400059.

 

                                                                             ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Raj Kumar Gonder Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for the Opposite parties.

                   

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his Mahindra Scorpia-LX2, 6 Turbo with opposite party no.1, vide policy no.2311200060787000000 and cover note no.2300476579 valid from 31.1.2011 to 30.1.2012. On 28.9.2011, the said vehicle met with an accident near village Sirsi, District Karnal. Intimation was given to opposite parties, who appointed surveyor. The vehicle was inspected by the surveyor and he got prepared estimate report from Ekta Motor Workshop, Golden Punjabi Dhaba, near Samta Motors, G.T. Road, Karnal. The estimate was of Rs.1,00,446/-. The surveyor assured him that the amount to be spent on repair of the vehicle would be paid by the insurance company as soon as possible. Thereafter, he got repaired the vehicle from Ekta Motors. Spare parts were purchased from New Parkash Motors, Authorized Telco Parts, Karnal, vide bills nos.5426 to 5428. One pair of tyre was purchased from M/s Hindustan tyres, Ganta Ghar Chowk, Karnal on 11.10.2011. Thus, he spent total amount of Rs.1,00,446/- on the repair of the vehicle. However, the opposite parties paid an amount of Rs.19,862/- through cheque bearing no.126185, despite the fact that the genuine claim was of Rs.1,000,446/- Then he got served a registered legal notice dated 10.2.2012 upon the opposite party no.1 and registered legal notice dated 27.2.2012 upon the opposite party no.2 for making payment of the balance amount of Rs.80584/-, but the same also did not yield any result. Such acts and conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands ; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the claim of the complainant was duly processed by appointing Jagdeep Singh Bhayana as survedyor and loss assessor, who submitted his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19,862/- as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant was settled and an amount of Rs.19,862/- was paid to him, which was accepted by him and he also issued satisfaction voucher accepting the amount as full discharge of the claim, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Abhishek Kushwaha Assistant Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O4  have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                There is no dispute between the parties that the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration no.HR-45-9313 was insured with opposite party no.1 for the period of 31.1.2011 to 30.1.2012 and the same was damaged in an accident on 28.9.2011, after getting intimation from complainant, surveyor/loss assessor was appointed, who assessed the loss and submitted the report. The Surveyor assessed the loss as Rs.19862/- only and the copy of his report is Ex.O2. The complainant has alleged that an estimate of Rs.1,00,446/- was prepared by Ekta Motors for repairing the vehicle and on the asking of the surveyor he got repaired the vehicle from Ekta Motors and spent an amount of Rs.1,00,446/-, but the opposite parties paid only an amount of Rs.19,862/-.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties laid emphasis on the contention that the claim of the complainant was processed. The surveyor assessed the loss as Rs.19862/- and accordingly that amount was paid to the complainant. The complainant issued satisfaction voucher Ex.O4 after accepting that amount as full and final satisfaction, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.

8.                To wriggle out the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the signatures of complainant on the satisfaction voucher were obtained by the opposite parties by playing fraud and exercising the undue influence, assuring that the balance amount would be paid lateron. Therefore, the opposite parties were absolved of their liability to pay the balance amount of Rs.80584/- spent by the complainant on repair of the vehicle.

9.                The copy of the satisfaction voucher is Ex.O4, according to which the claim of the complainant was settled for Rs.19862/- and the complainant accepted that amount in full and final settlement of his claim. He had signed the said documents at two places. If, any fraud was played upon the complainant for obtaining his signatures on the satisfaction voucher, he could proceed against the opposite parties in Criminal or Civil Court, but no such step was taken by him.

10.               It is well settled proposition of law that where one of the parties to contract issues full and final settlement voucher (or no dues certificate as the case may be) confirming that he has received the payment in full and final settlement of all claims and he has no outstanding claim, that amounts to discharge of contract by acceptance of performance and the party issuing discharge voucher/ certificate cannot thereafter made any fresh claim or revive any settled claim. In this context reference with advantage may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Versus Boghana Poly Pvt. Ltd. 2009(1) SCC 267. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. 2015 AIR SCW 67 also the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the claim on the ground that complainant had accepted the payment in full and final settlement of claim. Hon’ble National Commission in Andhra Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance company Ltd. 2015(2) CPR 482 (N.C.) and A.P.Jos Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 2013(2) CPC 391 (N.C.)  and Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula  in first appeal no.288 of 2016 titled as Shri Ram General Insurance company Ltd. Versus Bhag Singh relied upon the aforecited judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the complainant had accepted the payment in full and final settlement of the claim he cannot make any fresh claim or revive the settled claim.

11.              Thus, in view of the proposition of law laid down in the aforediscussed authorities, the complainant after issuing satisfaction voucher  accepting the amount of Rs.19862/- as full and final settlement of the his claim was left no right to put up fresh claim or revive his claim or claim that he had spent more amount on repair of the vehicle than paid by the opposite parties.

12.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 13.01.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member