State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Insurance Co. vs M/S Anand Medical Store on 18 February, 2009
Appeal No.2249/03 The New India Insurance Co. V. M/s Anand Medical Store Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Shri Gopal Shastri,counsel for the appellant Shri S.S.Ali,counsel for the respondent Date of judgement: 18.2.2009 This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company against the order dated 4.11.03 passed by the District Forum,Chittorgarh in complaint no.271/03,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant insurance company in the manner that the appellant insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.35314/- within two months and further to pay Rs.3500/- as amount of cost of litigation to the complainant respondent.
It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company before the District Forum,Chittorgarh on 26.7.03 interalia stating that his Maruti Esteem car bearing registration no.RJ.09.C.1060 was got insured with the appellant insurance company for the period 16.10.01 to 15.10.02 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. It was further stated in the complaint that on 9.10.02,when the vehicle in question was going from Kumbhernagar to Chittorgarh city, a cow came suddenly running across the road from the right side and in saving that cow,the vehicle of the complainant respondent had collided with a parked 2 tractor trolly as a result of which the vehicle of the complainant respondent was damaged and as per the case of the complainant respondent a sum of Rs.74614/- were spent in getting the repair of the vehicle and information of that incident was also given by the complainant respondent to the office of the appellant insurance company,but the appellant insurance company had made a payment of Rs.39,300/- on 5.2.03 and had got a settlement voucher,but in fact the complainant respondent had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.74614/-,therefore,for remaining amount of Rs.35314/- the complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the appellant insurance company before the District Forum,Chittorgarh on 9.10.03 interalia stating-
that since the complainant respondent had accepted a sum of Rs.39,300/- on 5.2.03 in full and final settlement of the claim,therefore,thereafter he had no right to claim more money that the surveyor Shri C.M.Jagetia in his report dated 30.10.02 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.40,376.51 and taking that amount into consideration and after deducting some minor amount, a sum of Rs.39,341/- were paid to the complainant respondent who had accepted the amount in full and final settlement of the claim and thus,from that point of view also,the complainant respondent was not entitled to more amount and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 4.11.03 had not accepted the stand given by the appellant insurance company, but on the contrary,had passed the impugned order by which the appellant insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.35314/- to the complainant respondent.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.
3In this appeal,the main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company are in two folds:
that since a sum of Rs.39,300/- had been accepted by the complainant respondent on 5.2.03 in full and final discharge of the claim and he had signed the discharge slip,therefore,he was stopped from claiming more amount and that since the surveyor appointed by the appellant insurance company had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.39341/-,therefore,from that point of view also,the complainant respondent was not entitled to more amount and it was prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the complainant respondent has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On the file,there is a receipt dated 5.2.03 issued by the complainant respondent in favour of the appellant insurance company accepting a sum of Rs.39,300/- in full and final discharge of the claim. Further there is nothing on record to show that after that the complainant respondent had agitated the matter before the appellant insurance company and further there is nothing on record to show that the amount was accepted by the complainant respondent under protest, but on the contrary,it appears that the discharge voucher was signed by the complainant respondent voluntarily and without any coersion on the part of the appellant insurance company.
When this being the position,this Commission is of the view that the receipt dated 5.2.03 was signed by the complainant respondent in full and 4 final discharge of the claim.
So far as the second point is concerned,the survey report is also taken into consideration,from that point of view also,the amount offered by the appellant insurance company appears to be just and proper and from that point of view also we see no reason to differ with the assessment made by the surveyor as the report of the surveyor is based on correct evaluation of entire documents and papers available on record and the surveyor while assessing the loss has considered each and every aspect of the matter in detail.Apart from that this Commission is of the view that the report of the surveyor should be given due weightage.
For reasons as stated above,the appeal filed by the appellant insurance company deserves to be allowed.
The result is that this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is allowed,impugned order dated 4.11.03 passed by the District Forum,Chittorgarh is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant respondent stands dismissed. But still the complainant respondent feels that he is entitled to more amount,he should approach the civil court and for that the time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission could be sought to be exempted u/s 14 of the Limitation Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Engineering Works V.PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(III)SCC 583.
Member President