State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shekh Rabbani Mohammadi vs S.B.I. General Life Insurance Through ... on 31 October, 2018
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2018/716
Instituted on : 24.07.2018
Sheikh Rabbani Mohammadi, Aged 54 years,
S/o Fazal Ahmad,
Afroz Bag, Annu Bada, Moudhapara,
Raipur (C.G.) ..... Appellant (Complainant)
Vs.
S.B.I. General Insurance,
Through : Branch Manager,
Pujari Chambers, Fourth Floor,
Pachpedi Naka, Pujari Park,
District Raipur (C.G.) ..... Respondent (O.P.)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.B. BAJPAI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER HON'BLE SMT. RUCHI GOEL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the appellant (complainant). Respondent (O.P.) ex-parte.
ORAL ORDER DATED : 31ST OCTOBER, 2018 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.B. BAJPAI, PRESIDENT. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (in brevity "District Forum") vide order dated 18.07.2018, passed in Complaint Case No.151/2014, the appellant (complainant) had preferred this appeal for the consideration and reliefs, as claimed in the complaint.
2. The case of the appellant (complainant) in brief is that as the vehicle of the appellant (complainant) was insured with the respondent (O.P.) for the period from 18.11.2013 to 17.11.2014. In the month of December, 2013 the vehicle in question was damaged. Thereafter the respondent (O.P.) was // 2 // informed and the vehicle was taken to the authorized workshop. The appellant (complainant) paid a sum of Rs.19,101/- for repair and for other counts, thereafter he claimed before the respondent (O.P.). The respondent (O.P.) instead of Rs.19,101/-, only paid a sum of Rs.3,668/- to the appellant (complainant) and the amount was forwarded on 25.02.2014 and rejected the remaining part of the claim. The appellant (complainant) filed the complaint and prayed for reliefs, as claimed in the complaint.
3. The respondent (O.P.) defended the matter and would submit that on consideration of excess clause in the insurance policy, the independent and qualified Surveyor gave his report. Thereafter a sum of Rs.3,668/- was accepted by the appellant (complainant) as full and final settlement of his claim, hence cheque of the said amount is given to him. Hence prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Learned concerned District Forum held that as settled in 2008 (3) C.P.J.93 (N.C.) Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (National Commission), the District Forum, has to give weightage to the Surveyor's Report and does not indulge for quantum dispute. The party may go to the Civil Court for the quantum dispute and as in the present matter the complainant in the light of Surveyor's Report, has accepted the said amount as full and final settlement, hence it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. With this, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint.
// 3 //
5. Against the said order, the appellant (complainant) is here by filing the instant appeal. It is submitted that after repair of the car, the authorized workshop gave bill for Rs.19,101/- and the concerned District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint. The appellant (complainant) furnished affidavit. In the said affidavit it is submitted that before settlement of the claim, the signature of the appellant (complainant) obtained in many papers, hence the said documents should not have relied by the District Forum. Even Surveyor's Report is not proved. On the basis of said Surveyor's Report, the dismissal of the complaint is not proper, hence the appeal may be allowed. Claimed relief may be given.
6. In the present matter, as the respondent (O.P.) remained ex-parte, we are not having any stand of the respondent (O.P.) in the matter.
7. We have heard the appeal finally.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) would place reliance on the affidavit and other contents filed before the concerned District Forum and would submit that even if the report of the Surveyor may be taken true for the moment, the Surveyor assessed a sum of Rs.4,668.56, but the respondent (O.P.) deducted a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the said amount and gave only a sum of Rs.3,668/- towards claim to the appellant (complainant). Learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) would submit that minimum Rs.1,000/- ought to have been given to the appellant (complainant). The Report of the Surveyor may be given due weightage but also there may be lapses in the said Surveyor's Report. It is not settled law that Surveyor's Report may be treated as // 4 // final words. The Consumer Fora and Commission may go beyond the Surveyor's Report. In addition, the learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) placed reliance on judgment dated 16.07.2013 passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.342 of 2013 - New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. M/s Uni Ply Industries, wherein Hon'ble National Commission has discussed in para 4 of the order that "...Another contention raised by learned counsel was that the payment made by the insurance company was by way of full and final settlement of the claim lodged by the complainant and since he accepted the amount sent by cheque and signed the discharge voucher, the complainant is not entitled for any further relief. In view of this, learned counsel submitted that the Fora below erred in ignoring these aspects while awarding further compensation over and above that recommended by the Surveyor and already accepted by the complainant towards full and final settlement of his claim. In the circumstances, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order and acceptance of revision petition".
9. Learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) would submit that this case law is squarely covered in the presence matter. Hence, the appeal may be allowed, relief may be granted.
10. After perusal of the documents submitted before the concerned District Forum by the respondent (O.P.), it appears that by way of full and final settlement of his claim, the appellant (complainant) has accepted a sum of Rs.3,668/- towards all liabilities arising out of the claim. In the Surveyor's // 5 // Report, the Surveyor has finally assessed the amount of Rs.4,668.56. On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant (complainant), additional affidavit has been filed. In the said affidavit at para 4, the appellant (complainant) on oath submitted that he does not know the English language and after obtaining his signatures in the entire papers in English language, the same was mis- used by the respondent (O.P.).
11. If this contention may be held has debatable or true, with this it requires detailed scrutiny because as per this affidavit without disclosing facts mentioned in the document, his signature was obtained. The proceedings before the concerned District Forum, is of summary proceeding. For settlement of this issue Civil Court may be the appropriate Forum, who after examining the entire facts may decide whether the signatures of the appellant (complainant) were obtained by not disclosing all facts mentioned in the document or after disclosing the entire contents mentioned therein. Also on perusal of the case law cited by the appellant (complainant), we have noticed in para 5 of the order that in the cited case law, the respondent (complainant) accepted the cheque as partial relief and that too under protest. There is no material before the concerned District Forum that the appellant (complainant) accepted the amount under protect or as a partial relief. In absence of any such contents, the cited case law may be distinguished and we hold that the cited case law is not applicable in the present matter.
12. Though, Surveyor assessed the claim for Rs.4,668.56, but we cannot hold anything as to why the appellant (complainant) accepted a sum of Rs.3,668/- as // 6 // full and final settlement of his claim. The appellant (complainant) may waive any amount or may dispute the settlement. In the present matter, after considering the full and final settlement document furnished by the respondent (O.P.), we are of the considered view that the concerned District Forum has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant (complainant). Also the claim was dismissed on one more count that the District Forum should not indulge into the quantum dispute. On behalf of the appellant (complainant), no any case law has been cited against the case law cited by the concerned District Forum in para 10 of the impugned order.
13. On due consideration, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) sense substance, the concerned District Forum, has not committed any illegality or impropriety by dismissing the complaint. Consequently, we dispose off the appeal as follows :-
(i) The appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) is hereby dismissed.
(ii) No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice C.B. Bajpai) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) (Smt. Ruchi Goel) President Member Member Member 31 /10/2018 31/10/2018 31 /10/2018 31 /10/2018