State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surjit Kaur vs National Insurance Company Ltd on 17 May, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.820 of 2007
Date of Institution : 13.06.2007
Date of decision : 17.05.2012
Surjit Kaur, aged 45 years, wife of Amrit Lal, resident of Village Devi Dass, Post
Office Baja Chack, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.
...Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. G.T.Road, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur,
through its Branch Manager.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 10.5.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Hoshiarpur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate.
For the respondents : Sh.Parminder Singh, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant was the owner of Tata Safari No.PB-07M-5758. It was insured with the respondent for the period from 10.1.2005 to 12.10.2005
2. It was further pleaded that on 22.9.2005 Parminder Singh son of the appellant and one Balwinder Singh were going in this Tata Safari from Mukerian to Dasuya. This vehicle was being driven by Balwinder Singh, who was having a valid and effective driving licence at about 3.30 PM. When they reached near the village Chak Kasim, a tractor trolley was going ahead of their vehicle. In the meantime, some stray animal suddenly appeared on the road. Balwinder Singh applied full brakes, on which Tata Safari fell on the roadside ditches and suffered extensive damage.
3. It was further pleaded that intimation was given to the respondents. The respondents had deputed Rajesh Soni, surveyor for spot survey. He had also First Appeal No.820 of 2007 2 taken photographs of the accidental vehicle. The vehicle was then taken to the workshop of M/s. New Modern Automobiles Mukerian. DDR No.11 dated 30.9.2005 was also got recorded in Police Station Dasuya regarding this accident.
4. It was further pleaded that the respondents had also appointed H.S.Bedi as surveyor to assess the loss. Thereafter the vehicle was taken to the workshop of M/s Cargo Motors Private Ltd. Jalandhar, who was authorised dealer of Tata Motors.
5. The appellant had to spend an amount of RS.2800/- as towing charges. However, Sh.H.S.Bedi, surveyor felt annoyed as to why the vehicle was taken there. The appellant had made payment of Rs.1,98,510/- to M/s Tata Automobile against bill dated 16.11.2005. Sh.H.S.Bedi visited M/s Cargo Motors Private Ltd. and inspected Tata Safari before the repair and also after the repair. The insurance claim was lodged with the respondents but vide letter dated 8.12.2006 the respondents repudiated the claim. Hence the complaint for insurance claim of Rs.1,98,510/-. Towing charges, compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. The respondents filed written reply. It was not denied that the appellant was the owner of Tata Safari bearing RC No.PB-07M-5758 and it was insured with the respondents. It was also admitted that the vehicle had met with an accident on 22.9.2005. It was denied if the vehicle was being driven by Balwinder Singh at the time of accident. During the investigation it was found that the vehicle was being driven by Balkar Singh son of Raghubir Singh and not by Balwinder Singh as alleged. It was also denied if the accident had taken place in the manner pleaded by the appellant. As per report of Hardeep Singh Bedi, the accident had taken place with tractor trolley, which was loaded with clay.
7. It was admitted that Rajesh Soni was appointed by the respondents as surveyor for spot survey and he had taken the photographs. It was not denied that the vehicle was taken to M/s New Modern Auto Mobiles, Mukerian for repairs. It was also admitted that H.S.Bedi was appointed as surveyor and that First Appeal No.820 of 2007 3 DDR was lodged on 30.9.2005. However, it was pleaded that DDR was lodged with the changed version of the appellant. It was admitted that the appellant had taken the vehicle to M/s Cargo Motors Private Limited, Jalandhar, from where it was got repaired. It was denied if H.S.Bedi surveyor had ever asked the appellant to get the vehicle repaired from M/s New Modern Autombiles, Mukerian. It was denied if H.S.Bedi felt annoyed over it. It was admitted that the appellant had supplied the bill for an amount of Rs.1,98,510/- as repair charges of the vehicle. But it was denied if the said bill was correct. It was further pleaded that Sh.H.S.Bedi, surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,26,116.40 if the appellant had got fitted some spare parts in the vehicle without necessity, then the respondents were not liable for the same.
8. It was further pleaded that Ajit Singh Gill was appointed as investigator, who had submitted his report dated 13.10.2006. It was admitted that the claim of appellant was repudiated vide letter dated 8.12.2006 for the reasons that different versions were given about the accident and Balkar Singh who was driving the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service. The repudiation was legal and valid. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
9. Parties produced the affidavits / documents in support of respective versions.
10. The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 10.5.2007 with costs of Rs.2000/- and directed the respondents to pay Rs.1,26,116.40 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
11. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
12. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that appeal be accepted and the balance amount of Rs.72,393.60 (Rs.1,98,510 - Rs.1,26,116.40) be awarded in favour of the appellant along with compensation, interest and costs.
First Appeal No.820 of 2007 4
13. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents was that the appellant has already accepted Rs.1,33,247/- in full and final settlement of his claim on 1.6.2007 while the present appeal has been filed by the appellant on 13.6.2007. A copy of receipt dated 1.6.2007 has been placed on record, which is taken as Ex.CX. It was also submitted that the appellant had accepted full and final amount before filing of the appeal, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.
14. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
15. The admitted facts are that the appellant was the owner of Tata Safari bearing RC NO.PB-07M-5758. It was insured with the respondents for the period from 10.1.2005 to 12.10.2005. It had met with an accident on 22.9.2005. It was damaged. Insurance claim was lodged by the appellant with the respondents for an amount of Rs.1,98,510/-. However, the surveyor appointed by the respondents vide his report dated 15.8.2006 marked T had assessed the damage to the tune of Rs.1,26,116.40 and the value of salvage are to be fixed as Rs.4000/-.
16. It is also proved that since the insurance claim was not paid by the respondents. The appellant had filed complaint against the respondents for recovery of insurance claim to the tune of Rs.1,98,510/- . The complaint was accepted by the learned District Forum vide judgment dated 10.5.2007 and the respondents were directed to make the payment of Rs.1,26,116.40 as per assessment made by the surveyor with interest at the rate 9% per annum and costs of Rs.2000/-. The respondents had made the payment of Rs.1,33,247/- to the counsel for the appellant vide cheque dated 31.5.2007 in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant and the counsel for the appellant had given the receipt dated 1.6.2007 at the time of arguments, which is exhibited as Ex.CX. The present appeal was filed by the appellant on 13.6.2007 i.e. after receiving an amount of Rs.1,33,247/- in full and final settlement of her claim.
17. The law is settled that where the claimant accepts the amount in full and final settlement without any protest and without alleging that this payment was received by the appellant under undue influence or undue pressure or by First Appeal No.820 of 2007 5 misrepresentation or because of compelling circumstances of the appellant because of financial crunch, then the claimant would be entitled to maintain the complaint, but if no such allegations is made by the appellant then the claimant has no right to file complaint or appeal in the consumer fora.
18. This appeal is totally uncalled for and is dismissed because the counsel for the appellant had accepted the amount in full and final settlement of her claim. It was a fit case where the costs should be imposed on the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal after accepting the amount in full and final settlement of her claim, but in the interest of justice, we do not impose any costs on the appellant.
19. The arguments in this case were heard on 8.5.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon), Member May 17, 2012.
Davinder