Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/332/2018

Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Sachdeva

03 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

C.C.No.332 of 2018.

Date of Instt.:11.10.2018.

Date of Order: 03.09.2021

Hardeep Singh aged 37 years son of S.Satvinder Singh resident of village Lalli, Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad.

..Complainant.

     Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited registered & Head Office 24 Whites Road, Chennai-600014.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Gaushala Road, Mansa Tehsil & District Mansa (Pb.)

3.United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Fatehabad First  Floor Shop No.75 Anaj Mandi Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                ..Opposite parties.               

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Before:  Smt.Neelam Kashyap, President.

                                Smt.Sukhdeep Kaur, Member.

               

Present:                  Sh.Gurjeet Randhawa, counsel for the complainant.

               Sh.N.D.Mittal, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

ORDER

                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                             Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is owner of vehicle truck/tralla registered vide registration No.HR62-8712 and above said vehicle was fully insured with Ops vide insurance policy No.2004033116P117402684 valid from 24.03.2017 to 23.03.2018 as the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.42,352/- as premium with OP No.2.  On 10.03.2018, said vehicle got stuck with another vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-01GV-3961, in the area of P.S.Tara Nagar District Churu (Rajasthan), as all of a sudden Neel Cow had appeared on the road.  Due to this incident, the vehicle got badly damaged and regarding this DDR No.07 dated 12.03.2018 was also lodged with P.S.Tara Nagar District Churu (Rajasthan). Due intimation was given to the OPs and thereafter on the asking of the OPs, the complainant got his vehicle repaired from Kissan Motors, Barnala by spending a sum of Rs.12,50,000/-.  The complainant further deposited all the bills with the Ops besides completing the other paper works.  On 09.08.2018, the Ops had transferred Rs.9,25,000/- in the account of the complainant through NEFT/CITIN 18901046524. The Ops did not make the whole of the amount (Rs.12,50,000/-) actually spent by the complainant on the repairing of the truck despite the fact that the vehicle was fully insured.  The complainant requested the Ops many times to make the remaining amount but all fell on deaf ears. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs the complainant has to face mental agony and harassment which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C15 and Ex.C1/1, Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.

2.                                             On being served, opposite parties contested the complaint of the complainant by filing joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the present complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts from this Commission as the surveyor had assessed Rs. Rs.9,62,248.14 in total (Rs.8,47,288.14 as cost of parts after depreciation and Rs.1,14,960/-  as cost of repairing charges). Out of the total amount Rs.1500/- were deducted on account of policy excess clause andRs.35748.14 was deducted on account of salvage value. Rs.9,25,000/- has already been paid to the complainant. The complainant has accepted the amount voluntarily, with his free will and he has also affixed his signatures on the acceptance letter regarding full and final settlement of the claim. It has been further averred that the complainant has accepted the claim without any protest. Preliminary objections such as maintainability, estoppal and cause of action etc. have also been taken. Other pleas have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered the  affidavits and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

 3.                             Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the written statement and prayed for its dismissal.

4.                             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the vehicle truck/tralla bearing registration No.HR62-8712 was fully insured with Ops vide insurance policy No.2004033116P117402684 and it met with an accident during the validity of the insurance period but the Ops have only made the payment of Rs.9,25,000/- despite the fact that the complainant had spent Rs.12,50,000/- on the repairing of the truck.  It has been further argued that the vehicle of the complainant was fully insured and the insured value of the vehicle was Rs.16,50,000/- but the Ops have wrongly and illegally paid less amount than the actual amount spent on the repairing of the truck.  

                                Per contra, it has been argued that after receiving intimation regarding the damage of the insured vehicle, the surveyor was appointed by the Ops and the surveyor in his report Annexure R2 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,60,748.14.  Out of which Rs.1500/- were deducted on account of policy excess clause and Rs.35748.14 were deducted on account of salvage value. Thereafter, the claim was settled and as per full and final settlement an amount of Rs.9,25,000/- has already been paid to the complainant. It has been further argued that the complainant has received the said amount without any protest and in support his contentions learned counsel for the Ops drew the attention of this Commission towards Annexure R3 i.e. Acceptance Letter wherein it has been clearly mentioned that I/we finally agree with the above contents and assessment as full and final settlement of my/our claim to my/our satisfaction.

5.                             It is not disputed that the complainant had already received an amount of Rs.9,25,000/-  from the OPs with regard to the claim lodged by him on account of damaged vehicle in question. The complainant has not led any evidence that before/after taking the said amount (Rs.9,25,000/-) he had lodged any complaint orally or in writing with the insurance company that he is not satisfied with the amount paid to him. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India (2006) (5) Supreme Court 311 has held that Conduct would only amount to acceptance if it is clear that the offeree did the act with the intention (actual or apparent) of accepting the offer-Each case must rest on its own facts- If facts disclose that the offeree had a reservation/protested in accepting the offer, his conduct may not amount to acceptance in terms of S.8. It has been further held that in case protest and non-acceptance of the offer are conveyed before encashment it would not amount to acceptance-However protesting after receiving of amount would be of no avail and it would be treated as unequivocal acceptance- An offeree cannot be permitted to change his mind after unequivocal acceptance of the offer.  Section 8 of the Contract Act says Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration-Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal. In the present case, the complainant has failed to show any evidence that he had lodged any protest before or after receiving of the amount, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the acceptance made by the complainant by accepting the amount of Rs.9,25,000/- without any protest ceased him to approach this Commission by way of the present complaint.  So, as per legal proposition, when the complainant has already received and accepted the amount as full and final settlement upto his entire satisfaction vide acceptance letter Annexure R3, therefore, the complainant cannot agitate now this matter before this Commission. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in a case Dipali Das Versus United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. IV 2013 CPJ 233  has held that “ Surveyor’s report is pitted against the report of private surveyor- Surveyor appointed by insurance company is independent person. Report of surveyor will get preponderance over private surveyor’s report- loss assessed by surveyor upheld” The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as D.N. Badoni Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (1) CPC 528 has held that “The Surveyor report should not be ignored in which the amount of claim has rightly been determined.” The above-said law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi is fully applicable to the present case as in the present case, the Surveyor had assessed the loss of the vehicle in question and same was accepted by the complainant without any protest.

7.                             In view of the above-said factual position and legal proposition, we are of the view that there is no merit in the complaint and as such, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                                                    Dated:03.09.2021

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              (Sukhdeep Kaur)                                   (Neelam Kashyap)                                 Member                                                                    President                                                                                                                                            District Consumer Disputes                                                                                                             Redressal, Commission, Fatehabad.