DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.60 of 2016 Date of institution: 01.02.2016
09.09.2016 Date of decision : 28.02.2017
Yadvinder Singh son of Satnam Singh resident of village Bhagomajra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. The Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Swastik Vihar, Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula 134109 through its Branch Manager.
2. The Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, 401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400059, through its Managing Director.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Devinder Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Sahil Abhi, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Yadvinder Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant’s case is that he purchased 36 cows to earn his livelihood and got them insured them with the OPs vide policy effective from 28.04.2014 to 27.04.2015. The authorised doctor of the OPs inspected all the milch animals prior to insurance and prepared their health certificates. The OPs also inserted ear tag and this fact was also recorded in the health certificates of every animal. Thereafter the insurance cover was issued by the OPs. One cow bearing Tag No.00468339 died on 31.03.2015 and due information was given to the OPs by the complainant. The OPs appointed their investigator who visited and verified the dead cow and concluded that the cow died was the same that was insured with the OPs. After completion of the requisite formalities, the complainant requested the OPs for settlement of the claim and handed over all the documents to the investigator for onward submission to the OPs. The Veterinary doctor also conducted post mortem of the dead cow. There was no uninsured cow/buffalo with the complainant. The OPs did not settle the claim even after passage of 10 months. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 06.01.2016 by calling upon to settle the claim but even after receipt of the notice, the OPs did not settle the claim of the complainant. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay him Rs.60,000/- the insured amount for the dead cow alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death i.e. 31.03.2015; to pay him Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was earlier returned to the complainant at the time of preliminary hearing on 26.02.2016 by holding that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Soinic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(1) CLT 252, this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. However, in appeal preferred by the complainant, the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab vide order dated 25.07.2016 remanded back the complaint to this Forum for deciding the same in accordance with the provisions of Act.
4. Thereafter, the notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. The OPs contested the complaint by filing joint reply, in which it has been pleaded that the complainant is not consumer as he has already been paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claim through RTGS on 20.4.2016 in the account of the complainant with Bank of Baroda. After settlement of the claim in full and final, the relationship between the complainant and service provider comes to an end. The investigator appointed by the Ops submitted the report after thorough investigation on 22.04.2015 and the claim of the complainant was settled after applying the minds by the officials of the OP. The amount was accepted by the complainant unconditionally, voluntarily and without any protest. On merits, the Ops have admitted issuance of insurance policy but denied that the complainant purchased 36 cows to earn his livelihood. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of insurance policy Ex.C-1; legal notice dated 06.01.2016 Ex.C-2 and postal receipt Ex.C-3. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Piyush Shankar, Legal Manager Ex.OP-1/1; and copies of insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions Ex.OP-1; NEFT details Ex.OP-2; consent of acceptance Ex.OP-3 alongwith discharge voucher.
6. It has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that although the OPs have settled the claim of the complainant but he deserves compensation for mental agony and harassment due to delay in settlement of his claim. The OPs have delayed settlement of the claim without any plausible reason as the surveyor appointed by it duly verified and found that the dead cow was got insured from the OPs.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the OP has denied any deficiency in service on the ground that once the complainant has voluntarily, unconditionally without any protest and without reserving any right to recover any amount has signed the consent letter Ex.OP-3 as full and final settlement of the claim, he cannot allege any deficiency on the part of the OP. The complainant having accepted the said amount without any protest, there is severance of consumer service provider relationship and now at this belated stage, the complainant cannot agitate any right or allege any deficiency in service on its part. In support of his contention the counsel for the OPs has relied upon the order of the Hon’ble National Commission CPJ 2013(1) 637 Vijay Stationers Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. wherein it has been held that once the complainant accepts the amount unconditionally without any protest and does not show that he was compelled by the OPs at any stage to settle the claim at lesser amount, then he ceases to be a consumer as per the Act and privity of contract comes to an end.
8. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties and heard the oral submissions, addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. The facts of the present case are fully covered by the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Vijay Stationers Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd (supra). In the present complaint there is nothing on record to show that the complainant was compelled by the OPs at any stage to settle the claim at a lesser amount than the claim made by him. Once the complainant has signed the consent letter Ex.OP-3 and received the amount unconditionally then he ceases to be a consumer as per the Act. The privity of contract of consumer and service provider between the parties, if any, came to an end, the moment the complainant accepted the amount unconditionally.
9. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 16.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 28.02.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
