State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Gic ... vs Chitta Ranjan Bohidar, on 27 July, 2023
I
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ODISI_IA. CT]TTACK
FIRST API'EAL NO. 307 of 2012
(From an order dated 21.04.2012 passecl by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sur-rdargarh-l in
Consumer Complaint No. l24l20ll)
(1) Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office, At- GE Plaza,
Airport Road, Yerwade. Pune- 411006,India
(2) Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltcl., At- l" Floor, Koshala
I-Ionda, Plot No. 184(p), Panposh Road,
Rourkela-7 69004, Dist. Sundargarh.
Appellants.
Versus-
Chitta Ranjan Bohidar, Aged about 60 years, S/o
Radhakanta Bohidar, IVo Itadhakanta Bohidar,
R/o. Mohanty Para, Po/Dist. Sr-rndargarh.
Odisha.
Respondent.
Counsel for the Appellants- Sri Rohini Kanta Pattnaik.
Counsel for the Respondent- Sri Debais Flota,
Sri Manas Kumar Swain
PRESENT :- Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Member.
Sri Pramode Kumar Prusty, Member.
t) 2
DATE OF HBARING.O8 .72.2022
DATE OF OITDER- 27 - 07 -2023
ORDER
1) This appeal arisen out of an order dt.2l -04-2012 passecl by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forurn, Sundargarh-I in Constttner Complaint No. l24l20ll. Pafiies to this appeal shall be referred ivith reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
2) 'l'he case of the Cornplainant in short is that, lte u'as a t'eg.cl. owner of vehicle No. OR-16-C-0821 wl-rich was purchased by hirn to earn his livelihood and to maintain his farnily with f-rnancial assistance uncler hire purchase scherne provided by the Cholarnandalar-n DRS Irinance ltd. 'flte said vehicle was insurcd with the O.Ps. vide insurrance Policy No. OI{ t I
-2407-1811-0000851 and having customer ID 38191161 with validity period lrom 12-03-2011 to 1l-03-2012.'lhe said vehiclc during currenc)' ol'thc policy rnet with an accident on dt.31-07-2011 at about 3 pm at Kundraghati near MCL mines area in Sundargarh and the ir-rformation about the acciclent wars intirnated to the O.Ps immediately. After the reoeipt o1'the irrlortnation about the accident the O.P. No.2 imrnediately sent his agent who has tal<on the photograph of the accident vehicle. The Cornplainant also lodged lrll{ before the Police station regarding the accident. The Complainant also 3 submitted an estimate before the O.P. No.2 after that the O.P. No.2 has transferred an amount of Rs.46,400/- only to the account of the complainant bearing No.216401000006 at UCO Bank Sundargarh branch vide payee sys No.SAA3933406 dt.26-09-2011 without referring to the final bill which has been actually spent towards the final repairing of the damaged vehicle with an amount of Rs.1,36,4261-. The vehicle has been repaired at the different garagc of Sundargarh and the Complainant obtained money receipts torvards payment of spare parts which has been purchased for the repairing of the said accident vehicle. The Complainant was in the impression that the payment of Rs.46,4001- made by the Opposite Parties was part payment of the total claim amount of Rs.1,36,4201- and the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties several time to settle the total claim amount at the earliest and and pay the balance amount of Rs.90,0201- but the Opposite Parties remained silent in the matter for which the Complainant has filed C.D. Case No.l 24l2OlI before Dist. C.D.R. Forum, Sundargarh-I praying for a direction to the Opp. Parties to pay a sum of Rs.90,0 201- towards the balance amount claimed by the Complainant and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.
3) On receipt of notice, the Opp. Parties filed written version stating that the Opposite Party has insured the vehicle bearing/Regd. No. w-
{r, 4OR- I 6-C-0821 of the Cornplainant vide policy No. OG- I l-2401-1 8l 1 - 00000851 valid fiom 12-03-2011 to lI-03-2012. lt has been further statccl that no inforrnation has been received by the Opp. I)arlies regarding acciclcnr of the Complainant's vehicle No. OR- 1 6-C-082 1 on dt.03 -Ol -20I I or 3 I -07- 20Il at about 3 p* at Kundrabhati near MCL mines Sundargarh. Bur the Cornplainant had lodged a clairn with this O.Ps alleging his vehicler No. Ol{- l6-C-0821 was rnet rvith an accident on dt.03-09-201 I at about 1 0 AM near Sundargarh By-Pass. The said claim was settled by the O.Ps as firll and final settlement of the said claim at Rs.46,400/-. As per tl"re ternrs ancl condition depreciation of 50o/o is done for plastic parts and 25o/o 1'or other parts and the assesslnent was done by the surveyor and on basis of that only lir-ral arnounl wils paid. I{er-rce the insured is estopped h'orn claiming the rcrnainirrp. arnount and prayed to dismiss the case as there is no nierit in it.
1) After hearing the case learned lbrurr"r below allowe:d the complaint petition and directed to Opposite Parties to pay the clairn amount of the Complainanl a sum of Rs.1,36,4201- dedtLcting antount alreacly pirid by tl-re Opposite Parties i.e. a sum of Its.46,40Ol- and after deciucting depreciation on the rest amount as per procedure within 30 days h'om the datc of receipt ol'the older. 'I'he Opposite Parties were also directecl to pay Rs.50,0001- as colnpensation for harassment and rnental agony rvithin the 5 above period failing which the Opposite Parties would be liable to pry interest l2o/o per annurrl after 30 days of receipt of the order till the actLial day of payment of the awarded amount to the Complainant.
5) Challenging the irnpugned order tl-re Appellant has filed the present appeal.
6) Durir-rg the course of hearing, counsel lor Appellant submittcd tha1, the Iaw is well settled that whilc ad.irrdicating insuranr-:e clailn on,-. has to go by the surveyor's reporl and the surveyor's report is an irnportant piece of evidence while considering an zrccidcntal clainr and the sarne shall nor ire brushed aside or discarded without any cogent evidence to be laid bv ttre claimant. The learned Dist. Forum should not have discarded the claim discharge voucher wl-rich has been filed by tl-re appellant in sr-rpport ol'its casc by con-ring to l"rolcl that the signature of the ltespondcnt did not tally' with the signature which has been macJe in the 'n,al<alatnarna. 'l-hc afbrcrsaicl finding of the learned District Forurn while discarding the discharge voucher' is not only illegal but also amounts to miscarriage of justicc. l"he Appellant lu(her submitted that the responded has not only given the clischiu'ge voucher but also has subrnitted his consent to rnakc payment thlough Ntrl:l' fransfer to the appellant. This aspect corroborates that the responclent., has \d-
I t agreed to receive on amount of Rs.46,4001- ar-rcl the said amount has beon duly paid by the appellant.
l) Learned Counsel for the Appellant further subrlittecl rlrar learned District Forum has given a wrong fincling with regard to non submission of survey report by the Appellant although the Appellant has trled the survey report before learned forum belorv but thc sarne hars beon ignored by the learned District Forum lvhich amount to malerial irregularity and non considcration of rnaterial available on record [or wlrich lire irnpugned orcler is liable to be set-aside. Further tl-re order direcring the Appellant to pay corlrpensation ol lts.50,000/- torvards mental agony ancl harassment dis,' Vers to be set-aside because of the lact that tlte Appellant has not committed any deficiency in service or ur-rl'air trarde practice but thc1, have acted in accordance with the terms and conclitions of the policy and keeping in view of the settled position of law for rvhich the vely irrrpugnocl order is liable to be set-aside.
8) Counsel of appellant cited the decision reported in (1999) 6 SCC 400 in the matter of (Unitcd India Insurance vs. Ajnrer Sintr1h Cotton and General Mills) where in Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:-
"The nrere execrLtion of the dischctrge vouclter y,oukl not always deprive the consutner fi"om pre.fet'ring claim wlth respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of tirc \4:7
atlxount paid in default of the service rerulered. Despite exec'utiott oJ the discltarge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to sctti::l.i' tlrc Tt iltuttitl ur tlra Cornntission utttlet tlrc i!cl llttrt sLttlr tlist'ltctr,,4e vouclrcr or receipt lmd been obtoined _fi.ont hint tutdcr t,'te circt.tmstances which can be termed as.frctuclulent ot" cxerci,s'a of undue influence or by mis-representcrtion or the lilce. l.f itt ct given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtctined by .fi,ottd, rnis- representation, under influence or the like, coercit,e bargaini.trg compelled by circumstances, the authorin before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting oppropt.iote relieJ. However, where such discharge vouclter is provecl to huve beert obtainetl 'unJer uny o.f the ,s't.rslticiotrs ci.rcttrrnlarrcc.: noted hereinabovc, the triburtal or tlte contntis,vir.tn vyrnrl,:l be justified in granting the appropriate relief under tlrc circumstances of each case. The mere executiort of tlrc discharge voucher and occeptance of the in.cLuancr: cloint would nol estopp the insu,ed frorn moking ftu.ther c,lctint .fi.ont the insurer but only under the circu.tnstances as noticecl earlit:r'. The Consumer Disputes lledressal Foruilx,\ and ('ontnriss'iotts consti.tutecl under the Act shall also lttrve the poter ro fcrsrot licrbility against the insurance con\tanies nohvithskutcling tlrc issuqnce of the discharge vottcher. Strch a c,loim cattnot be termed to be fastening the liabiliry* against the in.yrrrrnt:e corupanies over and above the liabilities pq,able under tlte contract of insurance envisaged in the policy of in,stu"ance. 'flte claim pt'eferred regarding the de.ficit:rtcy oJ' .tervic:c shall lte b 8 deerued to be based upon the insurance polic1,, being coyer(:d by the provisions of Section -14 of the Act. In the in,s'lcrttt c'ase.\ the discharge voltchers rt,ere admiltedly exectrted t,oluntttril-t, and the coruplainants had not alleged their executiott ttnd,.:r /i'aucl, unclue influence, mis-representation or the like. [rt tlrc absence of'pleadings and evidence the State oommission tv(t,t justified in dismissing their contplaints. The Atational Commission however granted relief solely on the grotmd of delatt in the ,settlement of claim under the policie,s. 7-1rc tnere delay of a couple of months woulcl not hove attthori.secl tlrc lvational Commission lo grant relief parrictrlarl.t' v,hen /he, insurer had not complained of such a dela1, at tlte time o/ ctc:ceptance of the insurance amount trnder. tha pol.it:.v. I,[/c arc not satis.fied with tlte reasoning o/'tlte lVorionctl Comntis.sittn and are of the view that the state Cotnrnission wcts, jtrstifird in disntissing the complaints though on cli/ferent reas'oninss. 'firc observations of the State Commissictn in Jitta.ieerao Cottrm Mills Ltd. vs. IVew India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Originitl Petitiot,t IVo. 52 of l99l decidecl on I'lctvember 2c9, l99l) sholt oltvars t"te construed in the light of our findings in this judgrnent anel tlrc m.ere receipt of the antotmt without ony protest y;ould nct ah,vays debar the claintant.from filing the contTtloiu/. Urtclet. trre circuntslances the a.ppeals are allotved. Tlrc orders oJ tlrc JVational Commission are set aside b1, confirming the orcler.s passed by the State Commission. The complaint of tlte respondents shall stand dismissecl v,ilhout any ordet' a,s to costs. " L *rg
9) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant as O.P. entered appearance and filed a detail shou,cause contending intt,r'-
alia that the dispute case is not maintainable as therc is no cause ol'acrtion 1br. filing such a dispute clairning diI'lbrential amount. In adclition to the albresaid fact the Opp. I)ar1y has submittcd in their written statemenl rl:a1 tl-rey have settled the claim torvards lull and final satislaction ancl the rcspondcnt has submitted the discharBe voucher to the Appellant with firll and final satisfaction. After submission of tl-re discharge voucher tire Complainant has shown his willingness to accept the amount through NEFT. 'l'he Complainant has also subrnitted the necessary NEFT payrnent votrcher and only after submission of all documents and conrpletion o1' formalities in due clischargc of its policy obligation the Appcllants hervc paicl thc clain-r antount to the respondent. Therefore the respondent is legally estoppecl to claim further amount once he has satisfied with the claim settlement ancl has given discharge voucher to the appellant towarcls lull and f-rnal satisl'aotion of the clairr. Further the claim amount has been p,riO jl Cornplainanr in accordance with the report of the sLlrveyor, who is competcnt to assess tlte loss. The respondent having not raised any dispurte witlt re.gur<i to the surveyor's report and having duly executed the discharge voucher tolurrJs tull and final satisfaction of the clairlrcannot re-agitate the issue belorc tire tgL {" lo Court of Law. fhe Appellant in supporl of its plea has also frlecl tire surveyor's repoft, the discharge voucher executecl by the Respondent alcl pleaded for disn-rissal of the case. Further the Counse I of appellant subrnirt,:cj that the larv is well settled that survey reporl is an imporlant piece o1- cvidence and Cotrrl of law while deciding an Insurance Clairn lias to go by the surveyor's repot't. Further once the discharge voucher has been exccrrt,:cl by the Respondent towards full and final satisfaction, it is not open lbr tjre claimant/respondent to take the plea that the clischarge voucfuers 5as rror been signed to liis satisfaction. Thus with the aforesaid piea the appellanl prayed for dismissal of the case.
t0) counsel ofAppellants fur-ther submitted that, or-r the basis of tire pleadings of the l)arties the learne<J District Forupr witl-r or-rt co1sicler.i,g tire tnalerials available in record calrre to a conclusion that the clairn clischiLr.ge- cum-satisfaction voucher as subrnitted by the appellant is doubtlirl a,cl thelefore discarded the said discharge voucher while allowing the entire claim amount of the Cornplainant to the tune o1'Rs. 1,36,4201- ancl dircct,;cl the appellant to pay the entire clairn amount by cJeclucting the anrount u,hich was already been paid i.e. Rs.46,400/-. Further the appellants w,ere directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards corlpensation witliin a periocl ol' .10 days fi'orn tl-re date of receipt of the order failing wSich the arvar.clecl amount r ll sl-rall carry interest @ 12% pcr annuln after 30 cla1,s of reccipt o1'this o;cie1 Lill the actunl day' of pay'mcnt of the awarclecl LunounL to the Conplainant. l1) Counsel of Appellant further subrnitted that the irnpositiop o1' oonlpensation of Rs. 50,000/- ol1 appellants tou,arrds rncntal asopy apd harassment to be paid by the appellants to Cornplainant cleserves to be set-
aside because of the fact the appellant has not conrrnittccl any clc:t-ic-ign.r, 1, service or unfair trade practice but they have acted in accordapcc ivith tjre terms and conditions ol the policy and keeping in vierv ol' r6c scttlccJ llosition of larv as sttch thc very irnpugned orclcr is liable to be set-a:jicle. Counsel of Itespor-rdent subrnitted tl-rat due to non-payrnent of lull iimoLrnt of Its.1,36,4201- and fol forging the signature ol'Cornplainarrt on the clrrlm discharge currn satisfbction voucher he sufferecl horn mcntal agony ancl hararssment. l'he Hon'ble DCDRF has rightly passccl the inrpugncd or.dr-r to contpensate the respondent.
12) We have heard learned counsel for both the Parties, per.usecl tire Appeal rlelrlo, DFR, written notes of submission filed on behall' ol' tire Appellant.
13) It is admitted that the vehicle of the Conrplainanl Olt-16-rl- 0B2l was insured by Opposite Parlies with valiclitl, fi-orn 12-03-201 I to ll- 14 [/ larv rvhich is liable to be set aside.
17) IIence the impugned order is set aside.
18) In the result, the Appeal is allowed. No cost.
1e) Statutory arnount may be refunded to the Appcllant on pl'opel'
identification.
20) Due to non constitution of Bench by the then Presiclent, ot'cler
pronounce to-day i.e. on 2l-07-2023.
Senrl hac,k the DFR.
w
(P.K.Prustry)
(Member)
,rfu (N{ember