BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.51 of 2015
Date of Instt. 18.02.2015
Date of Decision :23.07.2015
Jagdish Kumar Deol aged about 45 years R/o CB-22/D, MIG Flats, Shalimar Bagh, North-West Delhi, at present C/o JD Electricals, A-2, Bank Colony, Salempur Road, Behind Verka Milk Plant, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. The Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd, Regd.Officer Reliance Centre 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bailard Estate, Mumbai-400001 through its Director.
2. The Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd, Regional Office, Ist Floor, Plot No.2, DLF Building, Tower-F, IT Park, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
3. The Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd, 2nd Floor, Aditya Tower, Plot No.5, Lakshmi Nagar District Centre, Vikas Marg, Delhi through its Branch Manager.
4. The Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd, SCO-2, Second Floor, PUDA Complex, Ladowali Road, Near Dainik Bhaskar Office, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
5. M/s Kosmo Automobiles, Show Room/Workshop, GT Road, Opposite Delhi Public School, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.AS Thind Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.Vikas Gupta Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 to 4.
Sh.Gagandeep Adv., counsel for opposite party No.5.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.DL-8C-AA-9098 make Hyundai/i20 Megna 1.4 CRDI bearing engine No.256039 and chasis No.547062. The complainant got the aforesaid vehicle insured from the opposite party No.3 vide policy No.1316542311001338. The aforesaid policy was valid from 10.4.2014 to 9.4.2015. The aforesaid vehicle of the complainant broke down at Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar on 14.12.2014. The complainant in order to get his vehicle repaired toed his vehicle to Kosmo Automobiles Workshop, situated at GT Road, opposite Delhi Public School, Jalandhar. The opposite party No.5 got prepared an estimate from the surveyor namely Puneet for the repair of the vehicle in question. As per the surveyor report the total estimate to be incurred for the repair of the Turbo charger and oil pan came to Rs.76,700/- and Rs.9500/- respectively and RF charges of Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/- respectively. The opposite party No.5 submitted the aforesaid surveyor report with the opposite party No.4 vide receipt No.697dated 16.12.2014. Later on, the opposite party prepared the bill bearing invoice No.B201404209 dated 31.12.2014 to the tune of Rs.66,664/- and another bill bearing invoice No.B201404197 dated 31.12.2014 to the tune of Rs.10,171/- for the repair of the vehicle in question. On 31.12.2014, the complainant was surprised and shocked when he was intimated by the opposite party No.5 that the claim qua the repair of the vehicle in question which was submitted with the opposite party No.4 was sanctioned only to the extent of Rs.7680/- and the remaining claim of the complainant was rejected without specifying any reason. The intimation regarding the refusal of the partial claim was made by the opposite party No.4 to the opposite party No.5 vide an email dated 31.12.2014. The complainant was left with no other alternative but to make the payment of the amount which was declined for reimbursement by the opposite party No.4 to the complainant. As such, the complainant had to make payment of Rs.66,660/- vide receipt No.1635 dated 31.12.2014 and Rs.2490/- vide receipt No.1634 dated 31.12.2014 to the opposite party No.5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid action qua the refusal of the partial amount of claim made with the opposite party No.4 with regard to the repair of the vehicle in question, the complainant again submitted his claim alongwith all the required documents with the opposite party No.4 vide letter dated 9.1.2015. It it pertinent to mention here that alongwith the aforesaid letter the complainant had furnished all the aforesaid bill, receipts and estimate to the opposite party No.4, but the complainant was astonished when the aforesaid letter dated 9.1.2015 qua the remaining amount of the claim was rejected on the ground that it is consequential loss and moreover the aforesaid bills qua the repair of the vehicle in question were never demanded in the repair estimate submitted by the opposite party No.5 with the opposite party No.4. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.69150/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon, notice opposite parties appeared but only opposite parties No.1 to 4 filed written reply pleading that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite parties No.1 to 4 under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. It is submitted that there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the answering opposite parties. It is submitted that all the claims of the complainant are already paid by the answering opposite parties at the time of settlement of the claim and the complainant has consented for the same. It is submitted that claim raised by the complainant in the present complaint is not covered under the policy terms and conditions. It is submitted that in the policy terms and conditions it is specifically mentioned that policy does not cover consequential loss/damages and claim raised before this Forum under the present complaint is result of consequential loss and not on account of any accident as such is not covered under the policy. The complainant had already issued the satisfaction voucher for the full and final settlement for his claim for a sum of Rs.9311/- for the damage occurred to the vehicle on 14.12.2014. Copy of the satisfaction voucher is attached. They denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. Opposite party No.5 did not file any written reply inspite of number of opportunities offered to it for this purpose and as such it was debarred from filing any written reply vide order dated 28.4.2015.
4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.CA to Ex.CO and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 4 has tendered affidavits Ex.OPA and Ex.OPB alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. It is not disputed that the insured car of the complainant broke down on 14.12.2014 and he took his car for repair to opposite party No.5. Counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party insurance company only paid Rs.9311/- out of the claim amount and disallowed the remaining amount on the ground that it was due to consequential loss. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite party insurance company that the complainant has accepted Rs.9311/- in full and final settlement of his claim and had voluntarily executed discharge voucher in this regard and as such he can not claim any other amount from the insurance company. He further contended that after acceptance of the above said amount in full and final settlement of his claim the relationship of service provider and consumer came to an end. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. In Jess Ram Khushi Ram Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. 11 (2014) CPJ 280 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission in somewhat similar circumstances has held as under:-
"The counsel for petitioner admitted that due to the pressure of the market creditors, the very existence of the petitioners was in danger the complainant had accepted the amount under compelling circumstances. He further contended that, complainant had protested and the "Protest Letter" by way of legal notice was sent to OP two days later. Also, the complainant approached District Forum on 05.12.2005 i.e. less than a period of one month from the date of receipt of the last payment on 09.11.2005, hence, filing of complaint can also be considered as a protest against, so called full and final settlement. Therefore, it was not a voluntary acceptance of claim and final settlement.
We do not find any force in such argument. Sending a legal notice, filing complaint before District Forum are the legal steps taken by the complainant. It is not as such a protest.
We are unable to substantiate as to why the complainant signed the settlement voucher, blindly? He has signed the discharge voucher for full and final settlement in October, 2005, received the amount by three cheques and the last payment was made on 09.11.2005. Thereafter, on 11.11.2005, he has sent a notice to OPs. Hence it is clear that the complainant was not vigilant and prudent enough, he is responsible for his wrongs, and woke up from sleep on 11.11.2005 after i.e. one month after signing document in October, 2005.
He would have in his handwriting written about protest on the same voucher or returned back the cheques to the OPs. He would have not deposited the cheques issued by the OP. Hence we are of the considered view that the complainant being an owner of his private company and he must have signed the consent letter with full knowledge after going through the contents mentioned therein and therefore, question of any pressure tactics by the opposite party upon the complainant does not arise.
8. In Swan Energy Limited Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (1) CLT 247, the Hon'ble National Commission has cited with the approval authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court by observing as under:-
"The counsel for the opposite party, New India Assurance Co. also drew our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2000) 10 SCC 334, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Venkata Padmavathi R&B Rice Mill. In this case, the facts of the case were that rice mill stock of the complainant had suffered severe damage due to cyclone and heavy rain. One of the Surveyors appointed by the Assurance Company assessed the loss Rs.23.30 Lakh and the other Surveyors assessed it at Rs.5,25 Lakh. The assurance Company, therefore, appointed third Surveyor, who assessed loss at Rs.14.80. The complainant reportedly agreed to accept Rs.14.16 Lakh in full and final settlement, but later approach the National Commission seeking full amount of Rs.23.30 Lakh. This was allowed by the National Commission, but the order was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was observed that:-
"Where assured agrees to accept a certain amount in full and final settlement of his claim, held, such an assured is bound by his commitment. In particular where there are no allegations before any Forum that the agreement was vitiated by fraud or undue influence-National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission erred in allowing respondent Mill's claim for an amount higher than the payment amount agreed between respondent and appellant insurance company."
9. In Mjrj Medichem Surgicals Vs National Company Limited & others 2015(1) CPJ (NC) 681, the Hon'ble National Commission after discussing the various authorities has held as under:-
"It is well settled that the provision 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 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".
10. The ratio of the above said authorities is applicable on the facts of the present case. No doubt the complainant can approach the consumer forum even after allegedly receiving the payment in full and final settlement of his claim if he is able to prove that his consent was obtained by fraud, coercion, undue influence etc. In the present case there are neither specific pleadings nor any evidence to prove that he signed the discharge voucher at the time of receiving the above said amount due to exercising of any fraud, coercion, undue influence etc by any of the opposite parties. Ex.OP2 is claim form and in the end of the claim forum it is mentioned as under:-
"Claim No.2141163520
I/We hereby acknowledge having received from Kosmo Automobile garage my/our Hyundai i10 vehicle bearing registration number DL-8C-AA-9098 which has been repaired to my/our satisfaction and I/we admit that the payment of Rs.9311/- on account of such repair by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited to the above garage is in full discharge of my/our claim upon the said company under policy No.1316542311001338 in respect of the damage caused to the above mentioned vehicle in an accident which occurred on 14.12.2014".
11. It is duly singed by the insured. So once the complainant/insured has accepted the above amount in full discharge of his claim, he is estopped from claiming any other amount from the opposite parties.
12. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
23.07.2015 Member Member President
