The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited V/S Gurvinder Singh Mann - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

CC/405/2019

Gurvinder Singh Mann - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Singh Rozera

04 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

Complaint No. 405 of 2019

Date of instt.11.07.2019

Date of Decision 04.03.2021

Gurvinder Singh Mann son of Shri Vijay Singh Mann resident of House no.1, New Ramesh Nagar, Karnal, age 29 years.

…….Complainant.

Versus

1. The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO 14, 1^st floor, Secor-3, HSIIDC, Karnal.

2. The Manager, Lally automobiles (P) Ltd. 117/8, K.M. Milestone, G.T. Road, Madhuban District Karnal.

…..Opposite Parties.

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

Present: Shri Kuldeep Singh counsel for complainant.

Shri Narinder Chaudhary counsel for OP no.1.

Shri Amit Munjal counsel for OP no.2.

(Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle (Amaze Honda car) bearing registration no.HR11G-8846 with the opposite party (hereinafter referred as to OP) no.1, vide policy no.1123003118P103031037, valid from 02.06.2018 to 01.06.2019. The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.03.2019. After the accident complainant has taken the said vehicle to OP no.2, OP no.2 repaired the same and charged Rs.89939/-, vide receipt 56 dated 04.04.2019 and also charged Rs.2962, vide receipt no.46 dated 04.04.2019. The vehicle of the complainant is insured under the cashless policy but OP no.2 refused to release the vehicle without paying the cash amount,, so under compelling circumstances complainant paid the abovesaid amount as cash to OP no.2. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP no.1 for reimbursement of the said amount but OP no.1 reimburse the amount of Rs.54,500/- and for the remaining amount OP no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant visited the office of OP no.1 several times and requested to pay the remaining amount but OP no.1 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly refused to pay the same. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not stated and referred to the report of the technical consultant, surveyor and loss assessors namely Sh. A.P. Chawla, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.54,500/-, vide survey report dated 24.04.2019. This amount has already paid to the complainant and the same has been received by him. As such nothing is due towards the OP no.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file and maintain this complaint against the OP no.2; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.2 has no tie-up with OP no.1 which is clearly mentioned in website

4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of driving licence Ex.C2, copy of Registration Certificate Ex.C3, copy of insurance policy Ex.C4, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C5, receipt dated 04.04.2019 of Rs.2962/- Ex.C6, receipt dated 04.04.2019 of Rs.89,939/- Ex.C7, tax invoice Ex.C8 and Ex.C9, acknowledgment Ex.C11 and legal notice Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 28.01.2020 by suffering separate statement.

5. On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajesh Rani Assistant Manager Ex.OPW1/A, affidavit of A.P. Chawla Surveyor Ex.OPW2/A, claim assessment sheet Ex.OP1, satisfaction note Ex.OP2, letter dated 24.4.2019 Ex.OP3, motor survey report Ex.OP4, final survey report Ex.OP5 and insurance policy Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on 10.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6. OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarvesh Kumar Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence on 10.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7. We have heard the learned counsel of all the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8. Learned counsel of complainant argued that complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR11G-8846 with the OP. The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.03.2019. After the accident complainant has taken the said vehicle to OP no.2, OP no.2 repaired the same and charged Rs.89939/- and Rs.2962. He further argued that the vehicle of the complainant is insured under the cashless policy but OP no.1 refused to pay the said amount. Under compelling circumstances complainant paid the abovesaid amount as cash to OP no.2. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP no.1 for reimbursement of the said amount but OP no.1 reimburse the amount of Rs.54,500/- and for the remaining amount OP no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant visited the office of OP no.1 several times for payment of remaining amount but OP no.1 refused to pay the same. Learned counsel of complainant further prayed for allowing the complaint.

9. Per contra, learned counsel of OP no.1 argued that surveyor and loss assessors namely Sh. A.P. Chawla, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.54,500/-, vide survey report dated 24.04.2019. This amount has already paid to the complainant and the same has been received by him. As such nothing is due towards the OP no.1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10. Learned counsel of OP no.2 argued that the complainant had taken the accidental vehicle to OP no.2 for repair and OP no.2 charged Rs.89939/- and also charged Rs.2962/- from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. As per version of complainant he spent Rs. Rs.89939/-, vide receipt Ex.C6 and Rs.2962/- vide receipt Ex.C7 on the repair of the vehicle. In support of his version complainant has also produced on record tax invoice Ex.C8 and Ex.C9. The claim was lodged with the OP no.1, a surveyor was appointed by OP no.1 who has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.54,500/-. The said amount has already paid to the complainant and the same has been received by him, vide satisfaction voucher Ex.OP2. Learned counsel of OP argued that when the complainant issued satisfaction voucher Ex.OP2 after accepting that amount as full and final satisfaction, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.

12. The copy of the satisfaction voucher is Ex.OP2, according to which the claim of the complainant was settled for Rs.54,500/- and the complainant accepted that amount in full and final settlement of his claim and also signed on the said satisfaction voucher.

13. It is well settled proposition of law that where one of the parties to contract issues full and final settlement voucher (or no dues certificate as the case may be) confirming that he has received the payment in full and final settlement of all claims and he has no outstanding claim, that amounts to discharge of contract by acceptance of performance and the party issuing discharge voucher/ certificate cannot thereafter made any fresh claim or revive any settled claim. In this context reference with advantage may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Versus Boghana Poly Pvt. Ltd. 2009(1) SCC 267. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. 2015 AIR SCW 67, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the claim on the ground that complainant had accepted the payment in full and final settlement of claim. Hon’ble National Commission in Andhra Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance company Ltd. 2015(2) CPR 482 (N.C.) and A.P.Jos Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 2013(2) CPC 391 (N.C.) and Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in first appeal no.288 of 2016 titled as Shri Ram General Insurance company Ltd. Versus Bhag Singh relied upon the aforecited judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the complainant had accepted the payment in full and final settlement of the claim he cannot make any fresh claim or revive the settled claim.

14. Keeping in view the ratio of the judgments, facts and circumstance of the case and the complainant after issuing satisfaction voucher accepting the amount of Rs.54,500/- as full and final settlement of the his claim was left no right to put up fresh claim or revive his claim or claim that he had spent more amount on repair of the vehicle than paid by the OPs.

15. As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.