State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Madhukar Ramchandra Chaudhary vs Sr. Div. Manager, United India ... on 1 August, 2011
A-1710/1999
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/99/1710
(Arisen out of Order Dated
30/07/1999 in Case No. CC/98/296 of District Additional DCF, Pune)
1.
Shri. Madhukar Ramchandra Chaudhary
R/o.
B-18, Raje Manor, Behind Natraj Society,
Karve
Nagar, Pune 411 052.
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1.
Sr. Div. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
D.O.
2, Success Chambers, Apte
Road,
Deccan Gymkhana, Pune
411 004.
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble
Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Mr. M. G. Barve., Advocate for the Appellant None present for the Respondent.
O R D E R Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant whose complaint No.296/1998 was dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune Additional District by its judgement dated 30.07.1999.(2)
Facts lie in narrow compass. The original Complainant/Appellant had purchased Maruti Van bearing N.MH-P-1038 and had insured it with the Respondent/original Opponent. While insurance cover was in force, the Complainant lost his car owing to theft. Since policy issued was for Comprehensive Risk B Policy, the Complainant claimed cost of vehicle by lodging insurance claim with the Respondent/original Opponent.
Respondent/original Opponent appointed Surveyor. Surveyor assessed market value of stolen vehicle and gave survey report recommending that the Complainant should be paid amount of `1,45,000/- for the loss of his vehicle in the theft. After receipt of survey report, Insurance Company had negotiations with the Complainant and Complainant ultimately agreed to accept amount of `1,55,000/- towards the insurance claim lodged by him from the Respondent Company. Insurance company paid the said amount. Complainant executed discharge voucher. Complainant also executed in favour of Opponent Company/Respondent letter of subrogation and Special power of attorney. However, not satisfied with the amount given by the Insurance Company towards loss of the vehicle, the Complainant filed consumer complaint in the District Forum and claimed amount of `27,000/-
more from the Insurance Company.
(3)The Insurance Company contested the claim by filing written version and pleaded that the claim of the Complainant was settled at `1,55,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim and payment was made to the Complainant vide Cheque No.300963 dated 31.03.1994 for amount of `1,55,000/- drawn on Bank of India. Complainant had not only given his consent for the settlement but he had also executed letter of subrogation and Special Power of Attorney in favour of Opponent Insurance Company on the stamp paper of `70/-
and Insurance Company also pleaded that all the rights of insured stood subrogated and all the rights transferred and vested in favour of the Insurer consequent with the full and final settlement of the claim with the Complainant. Therefore, it pleaded that the complaint as filed by the Complainant is devoid of any merit and it should be dismissed.
(4)The District Forum considering the affidavits and documents placed on record after hearing both the parties was pleased to dismiss the complaint, primarily on the ground that the claim was settled by the Insurance Company by paying an amount of `1,55,000/-. The District Forum also recorded finding that there was no coercion exercised on the Complainant by the Insurance Company when Complainant had accepted the amount of `1,55,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim lodged by the Complainant. Aggrieved by the said dismissal the Complainant himself has filed this appeal.
(5)We heard Mr.M.G. Barve, Advocate for the Appellant. None appeared for the Respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and the documents and affidavits placed on record by the parties.
(6)We are of the view that the appeal as filed by the original Complainant is devoid of any substance for the simple reason that after receipt of survey report the Insurance Company had offered to the Appellant the sum of `1,55,000/- by way of full and final settlement of the insurance claim lodged by the Appellant. What is pertinent to note is the fact that Surveyor had recommended in his survey report the amount of `1,45,000/- whereas, the Insurance Company additionally gave `10,000/- and paid to the Appellant a sum of `1,55,000/- towards the full and final settlement of the insurance claim.
(7)We have perused the letter written by the Complainant to the Insurance Company. It is at page no.94. At page 94 there is a letter dated 02.03.1994 written by M.R. Choudhary, the Appellant herein to the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein he had categorically stated that in respect of theft claim of the vehicle as per discussion with the Regional Manager Mr.Pawar Saheb on 22.02.1994 he was ready to accept the amount of `1,55,000/-. This would clearly disapprove the contention of the Appellant that he had signed the discharge voucher and had executed subrogation letter under coercion. The Appellants contention is unacceptable for the simple reason because Complainant had conceded with the payment made by the Insurance Company and he had written on his own accord to the Insurance Company that he is ready to accept `1,55,000/- towards full and final settlement of the insurance claim. In this view of the matter the contention of the Appellant is appearing to be devoid of any substance when he alleged in the complaint that he had executed the discharge voucher and letter of subrogation under coercion of Insurance Company. In the circumstances, we are finding that the order passed by the District Forum in dismissing the complaint is appearing to be just, proper and it is sustainable in law and there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the Complainant. Hence, we pas the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs. (iii) Inform the parties accordingly. Pronounced Dated 1st August, 2011. [Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale] Member [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep