State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Ram Bai vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 29 January, 2014
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR(C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/13/358
Instituted on : 29.05.2013
Smt. Ram Bai, W/o Late Premlal Sahu,
R/o : Village & Post, Village Kuthrel,
P.S. Anda, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited.
Paras Complex, In Front of State Bank of India,
Gurudwara Road, Durg, P.O. Durg,
Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri G.L. Yadu, Advocate, for appellant.
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 29/01/2014 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against order dated 15.05.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.CC/12/311, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant, has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complainant/appellant before the District Forum are : that the complainant/appellant is registered owner of vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.C.G.07- M-2645 and vehicle was insured with the O.P./respondent/Insurance Company, for the period from 12.06.2010 to 11.06.2011. The above //2 // vehicle met with an accident during the substance of the insurance. The matter was reported to the O.P./respondent/Insurance Company along with documents on 07.10.2011. The complainant / appellant got repaired the vehicle and she incurred near about Rs.1,60,857/- as repairing charges, but the O.P./respondent/Insurance Company only paid the complainant/appellant a sum of Rs.74,000/- and the O.P./respondent/Insurance Company arbitrarily deducted the amount to the tune of Rs.86,857/-. The complainant / appellant is entitled for the above amount. The complainant / appellant filed complaint before the District Forum.
3. The O.P./respondent/Insurance Company filed its written version before the District Forum and denied the allegations made by the complainant /appellant in the complaint. The O.P./respondent/Insurance Company further averred that when the O.P./respondent/Insurance Company received information regarding the incident from the complainant/appellant, it appointed Surveyor Nanda & Nanda Associates and the Surveyor submitted its report and assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.77,549/-. On the basis of Surveyor's report, the O.P./respondent/Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs.74,000/- to the complainant/appellant. The O.P./respondent/Insurance Company did not commit any deficiency in service and the complaint of the complainant/appellant, is liable to be dismissed.
//3 //
4. After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.
5. Shri G.L. Yadu, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, argued that the appellant/complainant sent immediate information regarding the incident to the respondent/O.P. and the respondent/O.P. forcibly obtained discharge voucher from her and one Mr. Pawan Jain, wrote that the payment was not in lieu of full satisfaction and the respondent/O.P. deliberately suppressed the facts regarding the above endorsement written by Mr. Pawan Jain, in the discharge voucher. Therefore, the District Forum, erred in deciding the case and learned District Forum did not appreciate the case in its right perspective, hence the order passed by the District Forum, is liable to be set aside and complainant/appellant is entitled for rest of the amount i.e. Rs.86,857/- He placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vasavi Traders, I (2008) CPJ 487 (NC); Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. v. Government Tool Room and Training Centre, I (2008) CPJ 267 (NC); Revision Petition No.2626 of 2005 in the case of Raghuwans Mani v. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Another order dated 20.10.2009.
6. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent/O.P./Insurance Company supported the impugned order and submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is //4 // liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (1) CPR 80 (SC); judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Bhim Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2011) CPJ 323 (NC); judgment of this Commission in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Savitri Devi, decided on 16.01.2012, judgment of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case of Popular Hosiery Mills v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. I (2008) CPJ 165.
7. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
8. Learned District Forum in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order observed that relevant documents were not in possession of the O.P./Insurance Company. In addition to the documents filed by the O.P./Insurance Company, if any other documents were in existence, then it was the duty of the complainant/appellant to file those documents, but the complainant/appellant could not produce those documents, hence the O.P./Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs.74,000/- to the complainant/appellant and obtained receipt thereof from the complainant/appellant. In paragraph no.9 of the impugned judgment the learned District Forum observed that after consideration of the aforesaid evidence, we give our finding in respect of point no.1 that //5 // the O.P. / Insurance Company has not committed any deficiency in service by not paying the remaining amount of Rs.86,857/- towards repairing expenses of the vehicle in question.
9. We have perused the documents filed by the parties.
10. The respondent/O.P./Insurance Company appointed Surveyor for assessment of loss to the vehicle in question and Nanda & Nanda Associates inspected the vehicle and gave its report in which they found that only Rs.77,549/- would be payable for the damages occurred to the vehicle in question. The Surveyor's report is a material document and appellant/complainant could not submit any material, which creates suspicion on Surveyor's report or shows that Surveyor's report is not in accordance with the damages caused to the insured vehicle.
11. The respondent/O.P./Insurance Company filed document D-8 (document - 11) which is discharge voucher. In the discharge voucher, it is mentioned that I/we agree to accept in full satisfaction and discharge of the claim under Policy no.190583/31/10/01/00004615 in respect of Mrs. Ram Bai, which occurred on or about 29.11.2010 and Rs.74,000/- was paid to the complainant/appellant.
12. In Chittiprolu Lokeswara Rao v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr., I (2014) CPJ 39 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
//6 // "9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC) = VI (1999) SLT 590 = (1999) 6 SCC 400, United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and Ors., in which it was held that the mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim if he is in a position to satisfy that discharge voucher has been obtained under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation. We agree with the principle laid down in aforesaid judgment, but in the case in hand, we do not find any circumstances proving fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation etc. on the part of OP. Letter dated 10.5.2010, appears to be in the handwriting of complainant himself and no protest was made till encashment of cheques. In such circumstances, aforesaid citation does not help to the petitioner. He has also placed reliance on decision of this Commission in R.P.No.4275 of 2007 decided on 11.1.2008 in which it was held as under :
"5. The complainant has submitted in his complaint that after 7 days of receipt of Rs.3,45,968/-, the complainant had approached the Insurance Company (O.P.1) and demanded the balance amount which was declined and he was asked to approach O.P.2. He further submitted that since the entire stock was burnt and the business had come to a standstill and because of financial crisis and heavy loss of interest, the complainant was constrained to sign on the discharge voucher, which was in a printed format. Therefore, he had no option but to file a complaint for the balance amount. This we feel is an act of coercive bargaining indulged in by the Insurance Company. A distressed insured person, who has lost all mans of earning his livelihood in a catastrophic fire, has no other choice but to accept any amount as an initial payment in the first instance.
10. Facts of aforesaid case are different from the facts of case in hand. In the aforesaid case printed discharge voucher was signed by the complainant under compelling circumstances and complainant approached Insurance Co. just after 7 days of receipt of payment whereas in the present case, complainant has given //7 // letter in his own handwriting and notice has been given after 50 days of letter dated 10.05.2010 for final settlement."
13. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd. (SC) (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"9. In the letter, thus read there is no complaint that the discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from the complainant respondent herein fraudulent or by exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like or coercive bargaining. In the case of United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills, (1999) 6 SCC 400, it was pointed out by this Court that mere execution of 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 tendered. It was further pointed out that 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 circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like, and if such a case is proved, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief.
11. In the present case, the claim of the complainant was finally settled by a letter dated 8.4.1994 and the payment was made on 8.6.1994, which was accepted by the respondent without any qualifications. It cannot, therefore, be said that the payment was made belatedly. The important date on which the quantum of compensation and to whom it should be paid is finally decided and not from the dates on which the correspondences ensured between the parties."
14. Thus, it becomes clear that as the complainant/appellant has accepted the amount in full and final satisfaction of her claim, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant was not maintainable and learned District Forum has rightly held that the complainant/appellant has not been able to prove her case and respondent/O.P./Insurance Company did not commit any deficiency in //8 // service. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.
15. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or irregularity, and does not call for any interference by this Commission. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S.Sharma) (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/01/2014 /01/2014