Haryana

StateCommission

A/1034/2015

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZAKIR - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD KUMAR ARYA

23 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1034 of 2015

Date of Institution:       04.12.2015

Date of Decision :        23.02.2017

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.178, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Zakir aged about 36 years son of Sh. Nazeer, resident of Chahalka, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat (Haryana).

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                            

                  

Argued by:          Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Shriram General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated September 07^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Zakir-complainant was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to pay the insured amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization after deducting Rs.3,48,500/-, already paid by the Insurance Company; Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.3100/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      A truck bearing registration No.HR55F-3088 owned by the complainant caught fire near Bharat Gas Godown, Malhargarh, Mandsor Road, Madhya Pradesh on November 20^th, 2009. The truck was insured with the Insurance Company from May 08^th, 2009 to May 07^th, 2010. He filed claim before the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company paid Rs.3,48,500/- towards full and final settlement of the claim to the complainant vide Claim Discharge Cum Satisfaction Voucher (Annexure A-4). 

3.      Dissatisfied with the amount, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

4.      The question for consideration is whether the complainant had received the amount of Rs.3,48,500/- in full and final settlement of his claim or not?

5.      Indisputably, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.3,48,500/- from the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of his claim.  He signed the Claim Discharge Cum Satisfaction Voucher (Annexure A-4).

6.      It was not the case of the complainant that execution of the aforesaid Discharge Voucher (Annexure A-4) was obtained by the Insurance Company under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation etc.  So, he could not be allowed to reopen his claim.

7.      In National Insurance Co. Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.(2009) 1 SCC 267, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“25.   Where one of the parties to the contract issues a full and final discharge voucher (or no-dues certificate, as the case may be) confirming that he has received the payment in full and final satisfaction of all claims, and he has no outstanding claim, that amounts to discharge of the contract by acceptance of performance and the party issuing the discharge voucher/certificate cannot thereafter make any fresh claim or revive any settled claim nor can it seek reference to arbitration in respect of any claim.”

8.      In Aradhna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Through Sh. Ashok Avasthi, Managing Director Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2015 (2) CPR 482 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission after relying upon a judgment titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd, 2015 AIR SCW 67 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant had accepted the payment in full and final settlement of it’s claim.

9.      In the case in hand, the complainant has not been able to produce any evidence to show that there was misrepresentation, fraud or coercion on the part of the Insurance Company in paying the amount of Rs.3,48,500/-, rather, the amount was received by him with free consent. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

10.    For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 23.02.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK