Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that Hari Om Gupta is the director of the complainant  company and he is owner of White Swift Car bearing RC No.29-AC-6055, bearing Engine No. K12MN7419984, Chassis No.MBHCZC63SKB359052 and he insured his vehicle with Opposite Parties vide policy No.36070131202000000110 valid for the period w.e.f. 01.05.2019 to 30.04.2022. Further alleges that said insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 14.09.2020 and in this regard, the complainant immediately informed the Opposite Parties and they deputed their surveyor. The damaged vehicle was brought for its repair with Remira Motors Private Limited and they prepared the bill of the insured vehicle amounting to Rs.2,05,954/-. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Parties for the reimbursement of the claim and also completed all the formalities, but the Opposite Parties  only paid Rs.1,76,400/- and retained the balance amount of Rs.29,554/- without any explanation. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to pay the remaining amount of the claim, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       The Opposite Parties may be directed to reimburse the remaining repair claim of the complainant amounting to Rs. 29,554/- alongwith future interest  @ 24 % per annum from the date of accident  till its actual realization.

 b)     The amount of Rs.50,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of compensation for mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.

c)       The cost of complaint amounting to Rs.55,000/- may please be allowed.

d)      And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice and equity.        

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that immediately on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered and entertained. Mr.Charanjit Garg Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed for assessment of the loss and he submitted his final report alongwith documents and assessed the loss of Rs.1,95,000/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The claim of the complainant was settled on non standard basis as there was contradictions in the statement of witnesses and 10% of the amount of Rs.196,000/- was deducted  on account of non standard and remaining amount of Rs.1,76,400/- was paid  to the complainant as full and final settlement through NEFT to the complainant on 03.03.2021 and now the complainant has no right to file the present complaint. On merits, the Opposite Parties took almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.  Hence, it is prayed that the   complaint may be dismissed with costs.    

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents  Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and  closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Smt.Sunita Mahajan, Sr.Divisional Manager Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Sh.Charanjit Garg Surveyor Ex.Ops1/B, affidavit of Sh.Piara Singh Surveyor Ex.Ops1/3 alongwith copies of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R25 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Parties   has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file.

7.       It is not the denial of the parties that the White Swift Car bearing RC No.29-AC-6055, bearing Engine No. K12MN7419984, Chassis No.MBHCZC63SKB359052  of the complainant was insured with Opposite Parties vide policy No.36070131202000000110 valid for the period w.e.f. 01.05.2019 to 30.04.2022. It is also not denied that the said insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 14.09.2020 and in this regard, the complainant immediately informed the Opposite Parties and they deputed their surveyor. The damaged vehicle was brought for its repair with Remira Motors Private Limited and they prepared the bill of the insured vehicle amounting to Rs.2,05,954/-. On the other hand, the contention of the Opposite Parties is that immediately on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered and entertained. Mr.Charanjit Garg Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed for assessment of the loss and he submitted his final report alongwith documents and assessed the loss of Rs.1,95,000/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The claim of the complainant was settled on non standard basis as there was contradictions in the statement of witnesses and 10% of the amount of Rs.196,000/- was deducted  on account of non standard and remaining amount of Rs.1,76,400/- was paid  to the complainant as full and final settlement through NEFT to the complainant on 03.03.2021 and now the complainant has no right to file the present complaint. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties.  But the case of the complainant is that   he has nowhere signed any discharge voucher for the receipt of part payment which the Opposite Parties have arbitrarily made directly in his account.  Moreover, recently Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redrssal Commission, New Delhi in case  Prabha Tyagi vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. REVISION PETITION NO. 568 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 07/12/2016 in Appeal No. 215/2013 of the State Commission Uttaranchal) Decided on  on 18 September, 2018 has clearly held that even if the discharge voucher is signed by the policy holder even, still the  execution of such vouchers does not foreclose the rights of policy holder to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora or any other fora established by law. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:-

“The learned counsel further argued that execution of discharge voucher for settlement of earlier claim of Rs.1,00,000/- does not debar the complainant to pursue his remaining claim of Rs.1,00,000/- in a court of law like the consumer forum.  In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the following pronouncements:-

(1)     Ramdas Sales Corporation Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., III (2016) CPJ 40 (NC).  It has been held that:-

"3.  The learned counsel for the complainant has placed before us a Circular No.IRDA/ NL/CIR/Misc/ 173/09/2015 dated 24.09.2015 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA) to all the General Insurance Companies, with regard to the use of discharge vouchers in settlement of claim.  The said circular reads as under:-

"The Insurance Companies are using 'discharge voucher' or "settlement intimation voucher" or in some other name, so that the claim is closed and does not remain outstanding in their books.  However, of late, the Authority has been receiving complaints from aggrieved policyholders that the said instrument of discharge voucher is being used by the insurers in the judicial fora with the plea that the full and final discharge given by the policyholders extinguish their rights to contest the claim before the Courts.

While the Authority notes that the insurers need to keep their books of accounts in order, it is also necessary to note that insurer shall not use the instrument of discharge voucher as a means of estoppel against the aggrieved policy holders when such policy holder approaches judicial fora. Accordingly insurers are hereby advised as under:

Where the liability and quantum of claim under a policy is established, the insurers shall not withhold claim amounts.  However, it would be clearly understood that execution of such vouchers does not foreclose the rights of policy holder to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora or any other fora established by law.

All insurers are directed to comply with the above instructions."

8.       Not only this, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this regard in case United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors., II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC) has held as under:-

"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, mis-representation, under 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, 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 estopple insured from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances as noticed earlier.      ............................." 

9.       The further contention of the Opposite Parties is that claim of the complainant was settled on non standard basis as there was contradictions in the statement of witnesses and 10% of the amount of Rs.196,000/- was deducted  on account of non standard and remaining amount of Rs.1,76,400/- was paid  to the complainant, but the Opposite Parties failed to prove that on which account, they have deducted said amount i.e. 10% of the amount. Not only this, said surveyor has also failed to explain on which ground, he has suggested to deduct the amount of 10% out of the assessed amount and as such, this contention regarding the alleged  deduction of 10% out of the  assessed amount is not considerable.  In such a situation, deduction out of the assessed amount made by the Opposite Party-Insurance Company regarding remaining genuine claim of the complainant have been made without application of mind. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pasters to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation.  This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible.  It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-

“It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.  The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy.

10.     In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Party-Insurance Company have  wrongly and illegally retained the remaining claim of the complainant.

11.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,  we partly allow the complaint of the Complainant and direct Opposite Parties-Insurance Company to reimburse the remaining claim of Rs.19,600/-  (Rupees Nineteen thousands six hundred only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 06.08.2021 till its actual realization. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company   within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Consumer Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.