Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/163

Harbhajan Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Dharminder Singh Antal

04 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/15/163 of 04/08/2015

Decided on 04/01/2016

 

Harbhajan Dass, aged about __ years ( Mobile No.99152-00398) S/o Mr. Hans Raj R/o H. No.91/A, Azad Nagar, Sirhind Road, Patiala. ….Complainant.

Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Leela Bhawan Market, Bhupindra Nagar Road, Patiala.

2. The CMD, United Insurance Company Limited, Head Office: 24, Whites Road, Chennai.

….Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

 

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. D. S. Anttal Advocate

For Opposite party no. 1 : Sh. B. L. Bhardwaj Advocate

 

ORDER

D. R. ARORA, PRESIDENT:

1. It is alleged by the complainant that he had got his car make Toyota ETIOS no. PB-11-BG-0032 insured with the OPs vide cover note no.29791 issued by the OPs on 26/07/2014 valid for the period 31/07/2014 to 30/07/2015 for the insured amount of Rs.6,20,000/-.

2. The said car of the complainant had met with an accident on 07/12/2014 in respect of which the communication was made with the OPs, who inspected the car and offered the value of the salvage of Rs.2,30,000/-, which was also accepted by the complainant reluctantly. Thus OPs were supposed to pay Rs.3,90,000/-. But the OPs issued cheque no.881252 dt. 23/3/2015 for Rs. 3,67,900/- drawn upon Oriental Bank of Commerce in favour of the complainant payable at HDFC Bank, Leela Bhawan Patiala. Thus the payment made by the OPs was short by Rs.22,100/-. The complainant protested the same and he raised the objection in this regard. The OPs intentionally withheld the said payment.

3. The complainant got the OPs served with a legal notice dt. 17/4/2015 through his counsel to pay him Rs.22100/- but to no effect and rather in the reply given by the OPs, it was disclosed that car was insured for Rs.6,02,656/- as against the actual fact of the car having been got insured for Rs.6,20,000/-. Even the complainant had paid the premium for Rs.6,20,000/-. It is alleged that complainant is entitled to the payment of said amount of Rs.22100/-, the payment of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation and he is further entitled to the payment of Rs.11000/- towards the counsel's fee. Accordingly he brought this complainant against the OPs u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act) asking for the said reliefs.

4. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.1 only, who on appearance filed the written version, who has not denied the OP having insured the car in question for a sum of Rs.6,20,000/-. It is further averred that on receipt of the intimation regarding the accident, the Op had detailed Er. Rajesh Wadhawan, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the extant of the loss, who vide his report dt.06/02/2015 recommended to settle the claim on net of salvage basis for Rs.4,71,656/- and the salvage value with RC was assessed at Rs.2,25,000/-. Hence the liability on net of salvage basis (with RC) was assessed at Rs.3,76,656/-. The IDV of the car was Rs.6,20,000/- but the same was correctly considered by the surveor and loss assessor at Rs.6,02,656/- at the time of accident as per invoice because with the passage of time, there occurred a depreciation in the value and the accident had taken place after a lapse of about 5 months of the insurance. It is further averred that although the initial value of salvage was assessed at Rs.2,25,000/- but it was found that salvage could fetch Rs.2,30,000/- (with RC). The matter was discussed with the complainant, who gave his consent to settle the claim towards full and final payment of Rs.3,67,900/-, in respect of which he had given his sworn affidavit dt. 11/3/2015 duly notorized and accordingly OP paid Rs.3,67,900/- with the condition that complainant shall retain the salvage of the vehicle along with its registration certificate and he shall be responsible for the use/ mis use of the salvage. The legal notice got by the OP was duly replied. Complainant is bound by the consent given by him. He has dragged the OPs into the litigation unnecessarily. After controverting the other allegations, going against the OP, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand on behalf of the OP, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Ms. Uma Dhir, Sr. Branch Manager of the OP along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and closed its evidence.

6. Complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard, the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

7. It is the plea taken up by the OP that the claim of the complainant was settled towards full and final payment, on a consent given by the complainant vide his affidavit sworn in this regard. OP has produced in evidence Ex.OP-1 the sworn affidavit of the complainant duly attested by the Notary Public in which in para no.2, it is categorically averred: “That the said vehicle suffered loss and the said company has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,67,900/- only for the said loss on net of salvage basis, after all type of deductions under the policy, subjecting to the terms and conditions of the issued and affective insurance policy as well as compilation and completion of the required documents by me as and when asked before full and final settlement, besides proven genuineness of the documents submitted by me from the related/ parent source.” In para no.3 complainant further averred: “That the deponent has retained wreck of the vehicle alongwith its registration certificate”.

8. The complainant failed to challenge his aforesaid sworn affidavit Ex.OP-1, in any manner, in the complaint or in his sworn affidavit Ex.CA tendered in evidence. Thus the complainant has not rebutted the plea taken by the OP that the claim of the complainant was settled with his consent on net of salvage basis (with RC) in a sum of Rs.3,67,900/-. The complainant has admitted having received Rs.3,67,900/- in his account. Therefore, we find that complainant had no basis to file this complaint.

9. It was simply submitted by Sh. Jasmeet Singh ld. counsel for the complainant that the OP could not settle the claim even with the consent of the complainant beyond the insured amount of Rs.6,20,000/- but we find that said submission made by the ld. counsel is devoid any force as an insured is always at liberty to settle the claim with his consent with the insurer towards full and final settlement even at a lesser amount of the insured amount. The Only exception, which the complainant could take is that the full and final settlement was not made by him with his free consent and the same was the result of mis-representation, undue-influence or coercion of any kind but that is not the case of the complainant. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced

Dated: 04/01/2016.

 

Neelam Gupta D. R. Arora

Member President