O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had taken various policies from the O.P time to time for its various properties one of such property is situated at “Sagardeep Building Local Shopping Complex, Saini Enclave, Delhi now herein after this may be referred as “The Property.” It is alleged that the complainant with regard to “The Property” took an insurance policy from O.P for the insurance against burglary to the tune of Rs.1 crore vide policy No.323400/46/06/00000073 dated 08.06.2006. It is further alleged that the complainant uses the said property for the storage of medicine raw material as the complainant deals in the same. On 29.08.2006 burglary took place on “The Property” and immediately O.P and Police was informed on the basis of this information, the Police registered an FIR bearing No.450 dated 29.08.2006. The final report was prepared on 28.09.2006 on the basis of untraceable report of the same date. It is alleged that as per the stock register, it was found that the goods to the tune of Rs.22,93,000/- were stolen from “The Property” the same were insured from the O.P. It is further alleged that the complainant filed burglary claim form immediately in the month of September 2006 along with list of the goods lost at O.P office. It is alleged that after two years handed over the cheque bearing No.025386 dated 16.05.2008 for a sum of Rs.19,91,796/- instead of Rs.22,93,000/-. It is further alleged that complainant wrote various letters on 19.05.2008, 30.06.2008 and 10.11.2008 to O.P with regard to the burglary claim and the balance amount of Rs.3,01,204/- which is due on O.P. Complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 14.01.2009 but to no avail. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to pay the sum of Rs.3,01,204/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P appeared and filed its written statement. In its written statement O.P has not disputed that complainant had taken policy refer to above. It is alleged that O.P has already paid the full claim as found payable on the basis of extensive investigation, survey and assessment of loss conducted by the Investigator as such there is no merit or substance in the present complaint. It is further alleged that the complainant has already accepted the amount of Rs.19,91,796/- in full and final settlement of their claim and have issued a duly signed settlement intimation voucher where it has been categorically stated that they accepted the aforesaid amount in full satisfaction of their claim against the O.P. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. On the other hand Shri D.K. Aroara, Divisional Manager has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have considered the submissions raised by counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.
5. The main controversy in this case existing between the parties is as to whether the receipt of payment of Rs.19,91,796/- as full and final settlement of the claim, foreclosed the right of complainant to further agitate the matter for balance payment. The answer is in the negative. The complainant, no doubt, admitted having received Rs.19,91,796/- on 16.05.2008 as full and final settlement of his claim but he subsequently filed the present complaint stating that his claim was for a sum of Rs.22,93,000/- and he received Rs.3,01,204/- less for which he has filed the present complaint. Stand taken by O.P is that on the basis of report of surveyor they prepared voucher for Rs.19,91,796/- and hander over the same to the complainant on 16.05.2008 as full and final settlement of the claim which was duly received by the complainant. It would not be out of place to mention here that receipt of voucher Ex.OP-5 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that aforesaid payment of Rs.19,91,796/- was for full and final settlement of the claim having duly received by the complainant. After words it was not proper and justiciable for the complainant to further agitate his claim for remaining sum of Rs.3,01,204/-. Regarding full and final payment after settlement the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled Shree Balaji Woolen Mills Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2013) CPJ 366 (NC), held that once insured had received the amount in full and final settlement of his claim and signed the discharge voucher, the complainant cannot be permitted to re-agitate his claim unless complainant is able to establish that discharge voucher was obtained under undue influence, fraud or coercion. It is pertinent to mention here that in none of the letters written after receipt of full and final payment, the complainant has alleged undue influence, fraud or coercion. Therefore, relying upon the aforesaid authority of Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service of the O.P. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 3rd day of February, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
