Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.8.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant. 2. The complainant (now appellant)got his vehicle insured for the period from 24.10.2007 to 23.10.2008 with the OP (now respondent). The vehicle was stolen on the night intervening 20/21-12-2007. A complaint with regard to the theft of the vehicle was lodged with Police Station, Sector-36, Chandigarh vide FIR No.414 dated 21.12.2007. Ultimately, the case was declared untraced by the Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh vide order dated 31.7.2008. After completing all the formalities, the complainant lodged the claim with the OP on 22.12.2007. On 20.10.2008, he received a letter from the OP vide which some documents alongwith consent letter for Rs.4,21,850/- was demanded by the OP, whereas the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs.5,63,825/-. It was stated that the OP paid a sum of Rs.4,21,850/- to the complainant without any justification whereas the car was insured for Rs.5,63,825/-. When the OP was contacted by the complainant, he was told that some amount was deducted because he (complainant) did not get his vehicle registered with the Registration Authority, within the prescribed time. A legal notice was sent to the OP on 12.3.2009, but no response was received. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him, on the ground, that the OP was deficient, in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practice. 3. The OP, put in appearance, and filed written reply, admitting therein the factual matrix of the case. It was, however, stated that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and enquire into the complaint as there was no delay, defect, deficiency or negligence in rendering service to the complainant, by the OP. It was further stated that in the course of process of the claim, it was found that the vehicle was not got registered with the Registration Authority, in the name of the complainant. It was further stated that since the complainant failed to take reasonable steps for getting the vehicle registered as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of the Policy, his claim was treated as “non standard claim” and an amount of Rs.4,21,850/- was released in his favour towards full and final settlement. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.4,21,850/- was received by the complainant without any protest. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, it did not lie in the mouth of the complainant at this stage that he was entitled to Rs.5,63,825/-, the sum for which the vehicle was got insured. It was further stated that the OP was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice and thus, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. 4. The parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that claim of the complainant was rightly settled on ‘non-standard basis’ as the vehicle, in question, at the time of commission of theft had not been registered in his favour as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the terms and conditions of the Policy. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the vehicle had not been registered in favour of the complainant, at the time the theft thereof took place, yet his claim was wrongly settled on ‘non-standard basis’. He further submitted that there was no violation of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. He further submitted that if there was any violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, then only a small fine could be imposed upon him, for not getting the vehicle registered, within the prescribed period. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.4,21,850/- was received by the complainant, in partial discharge of the liability and not in full and final settlement of the claim. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in disallowing the amount of Rs.5,63,825/- , the sum for which the vehicle was got insured by the complainant. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that since there was violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy obtained by the complainant, as he had not got registered the vehicle, on the date, the theft thereof took place, so the claim was settled on non-standard basis. He further submitted that even the amount of Rs.4,21,850/- on non-standard basis, in full and final settlement of the claim was accepted, by the complainant, without any protest or demur. He further submitted that the discharge vouchers were signed by the complainant, of his own accord, and without any fraud having been played upon him or misrepresentation made to him. He further submitted that as such, after accepting the amount of Rs.4,21,850/- in full and final settlement of his claim, the complainant could not challenge the same. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting the interference of this Commission. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the complainant purchased the insurance policy in respect of his vehicle. There is hardly any dispute about the factum, that at the time of commission of theft of the vehicle, the same had not been registered, in the name of the complainant. Under these circumstances, there was breach of the conditions of the Policy R-1, as also violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. No doubt, such breach was not fundamental or germane to the commission of theft of the vehicle, yet the District Forum was right in coming to the conclusion that the claim was rightly settled on non-standard basis. In Amalendu Sahoo Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010ACJ1250(SC), a comprehensive policy, in respect of a private vehicle, was obtained by the complainant/owner. The owner gave his vehicle for private purpose against the terms of Policy though no payment for hire charges was proved, when it met with an accident. The claim of the owner was repudiated by the Insurance Company, on the ground of violation of the terms of the Policy. The complainant/owner filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act and all the Foras upheld the repudiation, made by the Insurance Company. In these circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo’s case (supra) held that the total repudiation of the claim of the complainant, was unjustifiable, and the same (claim) was required to be settled on non-standard basis. Ultimately, the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- though compensation claimed was Rs.5 lacs. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nitin Khandelwal,2008 ACJ 2035(SC), the principle of law, laid down, by the Hon’ble Apex Court was to the effect that even if it is assumed that there was breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. Similar principle of law, was laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gian Singh,2006CTJ 221(NCDRC) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak,2006 CTJ 221(NC). In view of the principle of law, laid down by the Apex Court, as also by the National Commission, in the cases, referred to above, in our considered opinion, the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that since there was breach of the condition of the Policy, the claim was rightly settled in the amount of Rs.4,21,850/-, against the Insured Declared Value of Rs.5,63,825/-, on non-standard basis. The findings of the District Forum in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 11. The Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, placed reliance on Rajendra Prasad Tiwary Vs New India Assurance Company & Ors I(2007) CPJ 391 in support of his contention that even if the vehicle had not been got registered by the complainant, in his name, within the prescribed period, the registration certificate could be obtained by him on payment of late fee of Rs.100/- and, as such, mere non-registration of the vehicle on the date of theft could not be set up a ground for settling the claim on non-standard basis. The principle of law, laid down in Rajendra Prasad Tiwary’s case (supra), decided by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Ranchi, runs contrary to the principle of law, laid down in Amalendu Sahoo’s case (supra) and Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nitin Khandelwal’s case(supra) decided by the Apex Court and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gian Singh’s case (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak’s case (supra) decided by the National Commission and, as such, the same does not hold the field. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from Rajendra Prasad Tiwary’s case (supra). The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 12. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellant could re-agitate his claim, after accepting the amount of Rs.4,21,850/- vide discharge vouchers, copies whereof are R-2 and R-3. In our opinion, the answer to the same is in the negative. A perusal of R-2, copy of the discharge voucher clearly goes to show that an amount of Rs.4,21,850/- was accepted by the complainant with eyes wide open. After receipt of this amount, he signed this document of his own free volition. No evidence was produced by the complainant to the effect that any fraud was played upon him by obtaining his signatures on R-2 or that misrepresentation was made to him, as a result whereof, he signed this document. No doubt, in this document the words “ Received this ….day of ….. from the New India Assurance Company Ltd. The sum of rupees four lakh twenty one thousand eight hundred fifty only which I/we agree to accept in full/partial satisfaction and discharge of the claim under Policy No.350294/31/01/00003998 in respect of Mr.Pritpal Singh which occurred on or about 21.12.2007” are written. In case, the amount of Rs.4,21,850/- was received by the complainant in partial satisfaction of his claim, then he could score out the word ‘full’ and tick mark the word ‘partial’. Not only this, even it is evident from R-3 Claim Disbursement Voucher that the complainant signed this document after receiving Rs.4,21,850/- . He did not raise any protest at the time of signing both these documents and obtained the amount of Rs.4,21,850/- without any demur. Even after these documents were signed by him, he did not write any letter, immediately, to the Insurance Company that a fraud was played upon him, by obtaining his signatures on the same or that a misrepresentation was made to him, and, therefore, he did not accept the amount, in full and final settlement of the claim. He woke up very late and filed the complaint. Even, in the complaint, no allegation with regard to any fraud or misrepresentation was made by the complainant. It means that the documents R-2 & R-3 Discharge Voucher and Claim Disbursement Voucher, were voluntarily executed by the complainant. Had it been proved that the Discharge Voucher and Claim Disbursement Voucher were the result of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion the matter would have been different. In Prem Prakash Agarwal Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. III(2007)CPJ433(NC) the discharge voucher was found to have been executed by the complainant, voluntarily. He did not allege the execution thereof under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation etc. Under these circumstances, the National Commission held that he could not be allowed to take about turn after receipt of the said payment. In these circumstances, the District Forum was right in coming to the conclusion, that once the discharge voucher and claim disbursement voucher were signed by the complainant, voluntarily, he could not be allowed to take about turn to say that he was not bound by the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. No other point was urged or argued by the Counsel for the parties. 13. The order of the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.3000/-. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 16. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
