Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/948/2021

Govind Fuels - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar

12 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/948/2021
Date of Institution	:	27/12/2021
Date of Decision	:	12/10/2023

 

Govind Fuels through Rajesh Bhutani, Proprietor, Village Tabar, Tehsil Barwala, District Panchkula, Haryana.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional office SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
2. The Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional office SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.J.P.Nahar, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased standard fire & special perils policy against stock, furniture, fixture, fittings, plant and machinery on 02.12.2019 for a sum of Rs.31,047/- from OPs. The said policy was effective w.e.f. 02.12.2019 to 01.12.2020 (Ex.C-1). On 28.06.2020, Sh.Vikram Bhutani, son of Sh.Rajesh Bhutani, proprietor left the factory premises at about 8.30 PM after properly checking the machines and thereafter at about 9.20-9.30 PM he received a call from his foreman that there was sparking in the wires which lead to fire in the factory. On reaching the factory premises, Sh.Rajesh Bhutani and his son found that the stock lying there was burning and flames were spreading from al the angles. The entire stock lying in the factory was burnt to ashes in front of their eyes and even the machinery lying in the factory was also completely burnt. The fire could not be controlled till the next day i.e., 29.06.2020 till 7.00 PM and it took about 5 days to completely extinguish the fire. Sh.Rajesh Bhutani, paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the fire Brigade for extinguishing the fire (Ex.C-2 & C-3). Thereafter, Sh.Rajesh Bhutani, intimated the OPs on 29.06.2020 with regard to the fire at his factory premises and after receipt of information, the OPs appointed Sh.Deepak Malhotra, surveyor and loss assessor to survey and assess the loss in the factory premises. The claim form was also filled and supplied to the OPs (Ex.C-6). Various documents as demanded by surveyor were supplied to him from time to time. Despite receipt of all the required documents and information from time to time, the OPs failed to settle genuine claim of the complainant and kept on lingering the claim of the complainant on one pretext or the other and they took the undue advantage of the leniency of the complainant. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their reply and stated that the present complaint is defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties as there are allegations against the surveyor that he did not conduct the survey properly and assessed the loss less and made arbitrary deductions, but the complainant has not made him the necessary party. Therefore, the present complaint is defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be rejected on this sole ground. It is further stated that the complainant submitted GSTR-3B form and the surveyor checked that the reversal has been checked and he recommended for releasing the GST and an amount of Rs.10,29,304/- was paid to the complainant (Ex.OP-1&2/4) colly. Since, the complainant has received the amount of claim after voluntarily signing the consent letter, the complainant is now precluded from claiming anything as both the parties to the contract are fully discharged from their respective obligation. After payment of claim on submission on consent letter voluntarily signed and duly executed, no cause of action survives. It is further stated that the payment of Rs.64,06,577/- was made on 29.04.2021, after receipt of consent letter dated 28.04.2021. The OPs transferred an amount of Rs.64,06,577/- to the account of the complainant, after recovering the premium of Rs.4,934/- towards reinstatement of sum insured under the policy. So it is specifically denied that the OPs have intentionally, deliberately and malafidely failed to settle the claim. It is denied that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.3,39,720/- due to destruction of the salvage with a passage of time. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of having proper insurance cover, his legitimate claim has not been paid completely and has not yet been settled.
7.     We have perused Annexure OP 1&2/1 which is a letter duly signed by the complainant/authorized signatory and addressed to the OPs. Subsequent to which an amount of Rs.64,11,510/- was paid to the complainant by the OPs. It is observed that the complainant has received the amount of claim after voluntarily signing the consent letter.
8.     We are of the view that now complainant is precluded from claiming anything further as both the parties to the contract are fully discharged from their respective obligation.

 

9.     It is also observed that the complainant himself has accepted the amount of Rs.64,11,510/- after submitting of discharge voucher duly signed and stamped. In the complaint we do not find any allegation against OPs of any undue influence, fraud or mis-representation or coercion. We are of the view that once the complainant accepted the amount unconditionally, he ceases to be a consumer.
10. In the case titled as M/s MJRJ Medichem surgical vs. National insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors decided on 22.1.2015 it is held as under:-

         “It is well settled that the provisions of this Act, are not meant for enrichment of the consumer. Once petitioner had received the amount unconditionally, under such circumstances petitioner cease to be a Consumer as per the Act. The privity of contract or relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties if any, came to an end the moment petitioner accepted the amount unconditionally”   

11.     Hence, in view of the above, discussion we are of the view that the complainant has not been able to prove his case by way of any concrete evidence. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
12/10/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member