DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 852 of 2009 Date of Inst: 15.06.2009 Date of Decision:05.05.2010 Devinder Singh, Post Master, SCF No.21, Sector 16, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U SUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No.III, SCO No.149-150, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.---Opposite PartiesQUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Sunil Dixit, Adv. for complainant Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv. for OP --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Devinder Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to pay the remaining insured amount of Rs.5000/-. The complainant further prayed that OP be also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as damages and Rs.25000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got insured his car (bearing registration No.CH-01-N-2027) with OP vide insurance policy (Annexure C-1) for sum assured of Rs.50,000/-. The said insurance policy was valid from 22.01.2007 to 21.01.2008. The vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 12/13.06.2008. The complainant lodged F.I.R. No.24 dated 13.01.2008 with the Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the complainant submitted his claim along with relevant documents with OP. According to the complainant, the claim has not been settled by OP till 31.03.2009. On 31.03.2009, he received a sum of Rs.45000/- against the insured amount of Rs.50000/-. According to the complainant, the deduction of Rs.5000/- from the insured sum of Rs.50000/- amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In reply filed by OP, it has admitted that the vehicle in question was insured for sum assured of Rs.50000/- . It has been pleaded that the surveyor vide his report dated 02.07.2008 submitted that the market value of the car in question is Rs.40,000/- + 10% and accordingly a sum of Rs.45,000/- was approved. According to OP, the complainant accepted the mutually agreed amount of Rs.45,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim vide settlement voucher (Annexure R-5) without any protest. It has further been pleaded that letter dated 12.01.2009 (Annexure R-4) was sent to the RTO for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the company only when the complainant had agreed to accept the said claim and transfer the vehicle in the name of the company. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that the car was insured for insured declared value of Rs.50,000/-. It has also been admitted that the car was stolen and the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.40,000/- + 10%. So an offer was given to the complainant for a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards the full and final settlement of the claim. According to OP, the complainant accepted the said offer and signed the discharge voucher in full and final settlement of the claim. The discharge voucher has also been filed along with the written statement as Annexure R-5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sethia Shoes reported in II(2008)CPJ-16(SC) has held as under:- “6. In response, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that immediately after the so called settlement was arrived at grievance, was lodged with the authority stating that settlement was not free and fair. 7. In United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and Ors., II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=VI (1999) SLT 590=1999 (6) SCC 400, it was, inter alia, observed as follows: “4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is true that the award of interest is not specifically authorised under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called “the Act”) but in view of our judgment in Sovintorg (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of India, Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1992 decided on 11.8.1999, we are of the opinion that in appropriate cases the Forum and the Commissions under the Act are authorised to grant reasonable interest under the facts and circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief. However (sic so), where such discharge voucher is proved to have been obtained under any of the suspicious circumstances noted hereinabove, the Tribunal or the Commission would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher and acceptance of the insurance claim would not estop the insured from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances as noticed earlier. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act shall also have the power to fasten liability against the insurance companies notwithstanding the issuance of the discharge voucher. Such a claim cannot be termed to be fastening the liability against the insurance companies over and above the liabilities payable under the contract of insurance envisaged in the policy of insurance. 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. 5. In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints. The National Commission however granted relief solely on the ground of delay in the settlement of claim under the policies. The mere delay of a couple of months would not have authorised the National Commission to grant relief particularly when the insurer had not complained of such a delay at the time of acceptance of the insurance amount under the policy. We are not satisfied with the reasoning of the National Commission and are of the view that the State Commission was justified in dismissing the complaints though on different reasonings. The observations of the State Commission in Jivajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., OP No. 52 of 1991 decided on 28.11.1991, shall always be construed in the light of our findings in this judgment and the mere receipt of the amount without any protest would not always debar the claimant from filing the complaint.” 6. In the present case, there is no pleading to the effect that the signatures of the complainant were obtained by any fraud or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation of facts or the like. In these circumstances, the version of OP has to be accepted that the said discharge voucher was signed by the complainant voluntarily and he agreed to accept the amount of Rs.45,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim. 7. In view of the above findings, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against OP. Hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 05.05.2010 sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
