National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Raj Kumar vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6 July, 2011
This revision petiton has been filed against the order dated 15 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 354 OF 2007 (From the order dated 15.11.2006 in Appeal No. 1733/2004 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Jaipur) Raj Kumar Petitioner S/o Sh. Pratap Singh R/o Nimdagate, Bharatpur Through Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Lal. Singh S/o Shri Rambharosi R/o Sewar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent Through Divisional Manager Kumher Gate Bharatpur (Raj.) BEFORE:- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner For the Respondent : : Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate Pronounced on : 6TH July, 2011 ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2006 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Jaipur (State Commission for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the OP Insurance Co., respondent herein, and set aside the order of the District Forum passed on 09.08.2004.
2. The petitioner/complainant got his truck insured with the OP Insurance Co. and the policy was effective from 09.11.1996 to 08.11.1997. On 17.09.1997, the truck was damaged in an accident for which FIR was filed with the local police station and intimation of damage was also given to the OP Insurance Co. To assess the loss, a survey was got done by the Insurance Co. According to the complainant, he spent Rs.2,81,663/- for repairing the truck and the bills/receipts in this regard were submitted to the branch office of the Insurance Co. However, the Insurance Co. made a part payment of Rs.1,41,417/- on 19.05.1998 and the remaining amount was not paid and hence a complaint was lodged with the District Forum. The case of the Insurance Co. is that during the survey which was done to assess the loss/damage to the vehicle, the loss was assessed at Rs.1,41,417/- as per the surveyors report and hence this amount was paid by the Insurance Co. to the complainant in full and final settlement of his claim. It is submitted that the amount was received by the complainant voluntarily towards full and final settlement after giving valid discharge voucher and hence the request for payment of Rs.1,40,246/- was denied as not payable. Similarly, the Insurance Co. also denied any deficiency in service and pleaded for dismissal of the complaint. After examining the documents and hearing the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP Co. to pay the balance of the insurance claim of Rs.1,27,414/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 19.05.1998 till the date of payment along cost of litigation of Rs.500/-. The appeal filed by the OP Insurance Co. against this order was allowed by the State Commission and the order of the District Forum was set aside.
3. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The State Commission while unsuiting the claim of the petitioner, has recorded the following reasons:-
We have considered the rival contentions. Exhibit A-1 is the disbursement voucher which goes to show that while receiving a sum of Rs.1,41,417, it was received in full and final discharge of claim. Exhibit A-1 bears the signature of the Complainant Raj Kumar. The complainant has not denied his signatures on Exhibit A-1. The complainant could challenge this discharge voucher only when he is able to prove that this document was obtained by the appellant by fraud, mis-representation or undue influence. No such allegations have been levelled against the Co. by the complainant in his complaint. Although copy of the letter (Exhibit A-1) has been placed on record to show that on the very day when the amount was received, the complainant had requested for payment of rest of the amount, but surprisingly the complainant took no steps nearly for two years in pursuing the matter further with the appellant and instead filed a complaint after such a long time. Filing of complaint nearly after two years goes to show that the payment was received by the complainant voluntarily as full and final settlement of the claim. Even in letter Exhibit-1, it was not mentioned that the discharge voucher was received by undue influence, threat or misrepresentation. We, therefore, hold that that the discharge voucher was executed by the complainant voluntarily and therefore he cannot make a request for further payment. Even otherwise the claim of the complainant is not tenable. We have gone through the report of the surveyor which has considered the aspect of depreciation, salvage and excess claim apart from other factors of granting or refusing claims. The complainant has not been able to show as to how the report of the surveyor was not as per the norms of the policy.
The net result is that the complainant is not found entitled to receive the further amount as claimed by him in the complaint.
4. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the view taken by the State Commission in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has relied on the judgement of this Commission in the case of Singureddy Ramana Murthy Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
[I (2003) CPJ 37 (NC). We have gone through this judgement by which this Commission after convincing itself that the consent letter for full and final settlement from the complainant was obtained by the Insurance Co. by misrepresentation, fraud or coercion or by exercising undue influence and applying the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. [(1999) 6 SCC 400], allowed the claim of the complainant against the Insurance Co. We, however, find that the facts and circumstances of this case are different and as rightly observed by the State Commission in its impugned order, the petitioner has not been able to show that the discharge voucher in question was obtained by the Insurance Co. by undue influence, threat or misrepresentation. In the circumstances, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajmer Singhs case (supra) and the decision of this Commission based thereon in the case of Singureddy Ramana Murthy (supra), cannot provide any comfort to the petitioner. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned and detailed order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition devoid of any substance is, therefore, liable for dismissal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(V.B. GUPTA, J) PRESIDING MEMBER (SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/