BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1086 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.884 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM-II HYDERABAD
Between
M/s Agarwal Foundries,
rep. by Mr.M.L.Agarwal S/o late G.R.Agarwal
aged about 72 yrs, Occ: Business
O/a Rama Towers, 2nd Floor, 5-4-83,
M.G.Road, Secunderabad-003
Appellant/ Complainant
A N D
The Regional Branch Manager
Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Deccan Chambers, 4th Floor,
6-3-666/B, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant Sri G.Venkata Swamy Goud
Counsel for the Respondent Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The complainant is the appellant. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the premise of proper settlement of the claim by the respondent insurance company.
2. The appellant company had obtained motor vehicle insurance policy on 12.6.2006 and its motor vehicle, truck bearing No. AP 28W 9819 met with an accident on 11.4.2007 at Shapur Hyderabad. The appellant company lodged its claim with the respondent insurance company for `47,695/-. The respondent insurance company had settled the claim for `26,342 towards full and final satisfaction of the claim. The appellant company requested the respondent insurance company to pay the balance amount of `21,353/-
3. The appellant company claimed at `3,000/- per day towards loss for the vehicle being repaired for a period of 25 days, `75,000/- and incidental charges of `20,000/- and an amount of `1,00,000/- towards mental tension and harassment, the appellant company claimed a total amount of `2,38,353/-.
4. The surveyor deputed by the respondent insurance company inspected the vehicle and submitted report dated 9.5.2007. He estimated total loss on labour and spare parts, `26,341.67 and on the same day on re-inspection he observed that the vehicle was found in roadworthy condition. The surveyor had estimated the loss on labour and spare parts to the tune of `26,341.67. The respondent insurance company issued cheque for `26,342/- on 28.6.2007 and settled the amount towards full and final satisfaction of the claim of the appellant company. On 13.7.2007 the appellant company submitted a letter stating that the amount of `26,342/- was accepted without prejudice to the claim and that the details of the assessment was not furnished to the appellant company and requested for payment of the balance claim amount.
5. M.L.Agarwal, representative of the complainant company has filed his affidavit and the documents marked Exs.A1 to A26. On behalf of the respondent insurance company, Exs.B1 to B6 had been marked.
6. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the appellant company had filed appeal contending that the claim was settled as part payment and that the appellant company suffered loss of Rs.3,000/- per day due to laid off of the truck for about 25 days and incidental charges of Rs.20,000/-.
7. The points for consideration are
1) Whether the complainant company is entitled to the amount of `2,38,353/-?
2) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurance company?
3) To what relief?
8. POINTS NO.1 AND 2 The complainant company taking insurance policy for the period from 12.6.2006 till 11.6.2007 for its truck and the vehicle meeting with an accident on 11.4.2007 at Shapur are not disputed. The appellant company submitted bills to the tune of `47,695/-. After taking into consideration of the surveyor’s report, the respondent insurance company paid an amount of `26,342/-. The respondent insurance company had paid the amount `26,342/- through cheque on 28.6.2007 towards full and final settlement of the claim. The appellant company had encashed the cheque without making any protest as to the full satisfaction of its claim. The appellant company had submitted a letter on 13.7.2007 demanding the balance amount of `21,353/-.
9. The appellant is a company and not an individual. The appellant being a company and having the knowledge of financial transactions and implications thereof, had encashed the cheque for `26,342/- without raising any protest or objection and sometime thereafter it had chosen to demand the balance amount of `21,353/-. If the appellant company had any grievance in regard to the settlement of the claim relating to assessment of damages or payment of the amount, it ought to have informed the respondent insurance company that the amount of `26,342/- sent through the cheque was not acceptable to it.
10. The appellant company having accepted the amount of `26,342/- towards full and final settlement of its claim, cannot turn round and demand for balance amount of `21,353/-. The settlement of the claim can be questioned only on the complainant alleging and proving fraud, coercion, misrepresentation etc. The appellant company has not made any of the aforementioned parameters as the basis and foundation for questioning the settlement of the claim even after encashing the cheque sent towards full and final settlement of its claim.
11. In “United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and others” AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3027, the Supreme Court held that the complainant can question the settlement of the claim after issuing discharge voucher for final settlement, on the grounds of fraud, coercion misrepresentation etc. The Apex Court held “The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, mis-representation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints”.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant company has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Srivenkateswara Syndicate vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another” reported in Ii (2010) CPJ I (SC) to contend that several surveyors could not be appointed by the insurance company. The principle laid down in that case is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as the respondent insurance company has appointed only one surveyor and not more than one surveyor.
13. In the aforementioned circumstances and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajmer Singh Cotton and General mills, the appellant company is not entitled to question the settlement of the claim after receiving amount of AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3027 26,342/- towards the full and final satisfaction of its claim. .
14. The appellant company filed complaint of similar nature before this Commission in C.C.No.47 of 2009 claiming amount from the Insurance Company on account of damage caused to two industrial sheds of M/s Agarwal Foundries at Pet Bashirabad, Medchal taluq in Ranga Reddy district even after receiving the amount towards full and final settlement of the claim. This Commission held such claim by a company not tenable and the complaint filed therein is the abuse of process of law.
15. The complaint seeking for the amount of `21,353/- even after issuing the discharge voucher towards the full satisfaction of the claim and seeking further sum towards compensation for the mental tension stated to have been suffered by appellant company and such other amounts would show the frivolous nature of the complaint.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in “”Ramarameshwari Devi and others vs Niramala Devi and others” V(2011)SLT196 that the frivolous litigation should be curbed an put an end to. It was held:
“We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrong-doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would lbe difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that Court’s otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases”
16. The National Commission while dealing with the aspect of abuse of process of law and frivolous complaints filed in Consumer Fora in “B.Venu Madhav vs Ch.Mohna Rao” IV(2011CPJ held that:
“It is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless petitions in different Foras”
17. The National Commission dismissed the aforementioned Revision Petition by imposing punitive costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on the revision petitioner. In our considered opinion the present appeal is nothing but gross abuse of process of law. The appeal is devoid of any substance and liable to be dismissed with costs of `9,000/-.
18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of `9,000/-. Out of the amount imposed as costs, the appellant company directed to pay an amount of `7,000/- to the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Welfare Fund and a sum of `2,000/-to the respondent insurance company. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.09.12.2011
KMK*
