PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

                This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant Ms Manali Malik against the opposite parties – ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., and 2 Ors.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant had taken a home loan from the opposite party Insurance Company for Rs.2,10,00,000/- on 08.09.2005. EMIs were regularly paid by the husband of the complainant and after his death, by the complainant. Learned counsel states that about Rs.3,14,000/- has been paid to the Bank. After paying all the EMIs, it came to the notice of the complainant that insurance policies were taken by the husband of the complainant. According to these policies loan waiver was to be affected by the opposite party on the death of the loanee. However, the opposite party accepted all the EMIs paid by the complainant and did not inform the complainant about the loan waiver policy. In fact, the OP should have themselves come forward to waive the remaining loan and interest at the time of the death of the loanee. When this fact came to the knowledge of the complainant, a consumer complaint no. 1178 of 2015 was filed which was withdrawn by the complainant on 22.01.2016 and accordingly the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn.

3.     The second complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs more or less on the same cause of action on 12.01.2017.

4.     Heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the issue of maintainability of the present complaint. Learned counsel has stated that the earlier complaint no.1178 of 2015 was withdrawn on account of the fact that there was an agreement between the parties dated 03.02.2016 whereby the opposite party agreed to return the amount of loan along with interest to the complainant. The agreement has been signed by both the parties, however, the complainant being an illiterate lady and not knowing the legal repercussions she signed the agreement. In fact whatever EMIs were paid should have been refunded to the complainant along with interest. Complainant has prayed for the following:

“Award an amount of Rs.1,13,30,568/- (Rupees one crore thirteen lakh thirty thousand five hundred sixty eight only) being the difference amount paid by the complainant and amount paid by the OPs under settlement dated 03.12.2016 being legitimately due and recoverable from the OPs jointly and severally along interest @ 18% on the entire amount of Rs.3,14,25,885/- as the same was not payable still the OPs received the same”.      

5.     It has further been prayed by the complainant that the original title deed be returned to the complainant.

6.     Learned counsel also states that though there is no breach of any clause of the agreement by the opposite party, however, the agreement itself has been wrongly presented by the opposite party and the same has been signed by the complainant as the complainant is an illiterate lady. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case United India Insurance vs Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors – CA no. 535 of 1994 decided on 12.08.1999. On the basis of this judgment, the learned counsel has mentioned that the settlement deed was entered into by the complainant as the complainant was in dire need of money, therefore, the complaint was filed for getting more amount from the opposite party and the settlement will not come in the way. Learned counsel has further argued that the OP should have themselves settled the matter at the time of death of the loanee, however, the OP accepted all the EMIs from the complainant and never bothered to settle the claim. Ultimately, the complaint was filed before this Commission and the OP came forward to settle the matter and the matter was settled. It was argued that there is an inordinate delay in settlement and therefore, this clearly is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled to compensation for the same. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to the judgment of this Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Lal Chand Jain and Ors – First Appeal no. 59 of 1994 decided on 08.01.1997, wherein the following has been observed:

“The inordinate delay in the settlement of the insurance claim either due to the negligence or unexplained delay on the part of the surveyor of insurance company amounts to deficiency in service of the insurer. In cases where the claim has been quantified and offered, the complainant may have been compelled to give an valid discharge to the insurance company who may be coerced the complainant into accepting the settlement of the claim unwillingly or involuntarily. The insurance company will not disburse the amount unless discharge voucher in full and final settlement without protest is given by the insured. The complainant may have no option but to accept the amount offered due to financial constraints or other compelling reasons. The insured may lodge a protest immediately on receipt or soon thereafter. The conduct of the insured becomes relevant on the facts of each case to find out whether the discharge was given voluntarily in full and final settlement or he was coerced into”.

7.     I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage and perused the material on record. It is seen that the husband of the complainant had died on 01.02.2007 and the first complaint no.1178 of 2015 was filed in the year 2015. The complaint was barred by limitation and the complaint could not be decided by this Commission as the same was withdrawn by the complainant vide this Commission’s order dated 22.01.2016. During the pendency of the complaint the matter was settled between the parties, though the settlement deed was executed on 03.02.2016. Once the parties have settled the matter and there is no allegation in the complaint that the settlement was affected with the help of misrepresentation, fraud, coercion or undue influence, the settlement cannot be called into question until one party has been accused of breach of terms and conditions of the settlement. In fact the learned counsel has clearly stated in his argument that the settlement deed has been fully complied with by the OPs and nothing remains in compliance of the settlement. It is stated that the discharge voucher has been fully signed and no protest has been indicated in signing of the discharge voucher. It has now been said that the matter was settled on account of financial hardship and the same can also be covered under misrepresentation/ Coercion/fraud and undue influence. Though, there may be pressing circumstances for entering into the settlement, however, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance vs Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors (Supra) the settlement deed and discharge voucher cannot be questioned if forgery and, coercion or undue influence or misrepresentation is not proved. Therefore the challenge to the settlement deed or discharge voucher is not maintainable. This is all the more true because the complaint which was filed against the same opposite party for the same cause of action was withdrawn by the complainant. Had the OPs not implemented the settlement deed the complainant was free to file the execution with this Commission, however, this is not the case in the present complaint. The present complaint basically challenges the settlement deed itself. If the complainant wants to challenge the settlement deed, Civil Court would be the appropriate forum and this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to cancel or to amend the settlement deed entered into between the parties with their free will.

8.     The other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant is in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Lal Chand Jain and Ors (Supra).       In this judgment this Commission has held that settlement of claim or delay in settling the remaining claim after receiving the survey report is definitely a deficiency in service. This judgment does not seem to be applicable in the present matter as the settlement deed was executed on 03.02.2016 after filing the consumer complaint in the year 2015 before this Commission. This settlement was done between the parties who have entered into the settlement with free will and accordingly, consumer complaint was withdrawn. Thus, the judgment of this Commission National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Lal Chand Jain and Ors (Supra) does not have any applicability in the present case. As the settlement has been fully honoured by the OP, I find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In this regard whatever were the grievances of the complainant with the OP, the same would have been addressed in the settlement deed executed between the parties on 03.02.2016.

9.     In my view, nothing survives in the matter particularly no cause of action has arisen for the complainant to file a second complaint before this Commission.

10.   Based on the above discussion, CC no.96 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.