State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Mohan Lal S/O Sukh Ram on 24 September, 2018
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 539/2018 Shriram General Insurance Pvt.Ltd. through Mr.Shailesh Vindal Asstt.Manager Legal office at E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur. Vs. Mohan Lal s/o Sukhram r/o Tehsil Dholia Distt. Nagaur Rajasthan & ors. Date of Order 24.9.2018 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Mrs.Meena Mehta- Member
Mr. Nitish Bagri counsel for the appellant BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
This appeal is filed against the order passed by the 2 learned DCF Nagaur dated 4.4.2018 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant. The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal is filed with delay of 82 days.
The contention of the appellant in application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is that in April 2018 the appellant could know about the impugned order . Opinion of Legal Department of the appellant was sought, decision was taken to file the appeal and Mr.Nitish Bagri, advocate was appointed on 25.6.2018. Advocate received the documents on 2.7.2018 and thereafter this appeal has been filed on 26.7.2018.
The bare contention in the application shows inaction on the part of the appellant. Impugned order was passed in presence of the counsel for the appellant hence, on the very day the appellant was having knowledge of the impugned order. Even the certified copy was obtained on 10.4.2018 but the decision about appeal was taken and counsel was appointed on 25.6.2018 merely after 2 ½ months and no reason has been assigned for this delay and reliance could rightly been placed on 2018 NCJ 457 (NC) Indian Railway 3 Vs. Ish Sharma where the National Commission has held as under:
" Evidently, even after receiving the certified copy of the impugned order on 13.4.2016 the petitioners did not show any seriousness in processing the matter expeditiously to ensure that the Revision Petition was was filed expeditiously. Such casual and lackatiaisical attitude on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & ors (2012) 3 SCC 563."
Hence, the appellant could not show any reasonable ground to condone the delay.
Further reliance could be placed on 2017 NCJ 947 (NC) Sunita Vs. Bajaj Allianz where the delay was explained on the ground that time was spent in collecting papers and contacting the counsel and National Commission has held that this explanation is not satisfactory.
Further reliance could be placed on IV (2017) CPJ 442 (NC) Indian Overseas Bank Vs. B.S.Agriculture where the National Commission was of the opinion that expression 4 sufficient cause cannot be construde liberally if negligence inaction or lack of bonafide are attributed to party. It has further been explained that statute provides for a particular period of limitation and it has to be applied with all its rigor as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty and explanation was not found satisfactory which is also the case here.
Further reliance could be placed on I (2018) CPJ 105 (NC) Kamlesh Shah Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mehta where the party was careless and negligent and in view of the special period of limitation delay was not condoned. Here in the present case also no explanation has been given for delay of 2 ½ months. Hence, application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be dismissed.
The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that matter is strong on the merit as the complainant has accepted the amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- as full and final settlement and contention of the appellant is that consent letter has been signed by the respondent and submitted as Anx. 2 in appeal.
5The contention is totally false. The original record of the case goes to show that copy of Anx. 2 is also filed as Anx. 6 before the Forum below on behalf of the complainant himself which is unsigned and in the reply to the complaint it has not been pleaded by the appellant that Rs. 2,60,000/- were consented by the complainant or a consent letter was signed by him. Hence, all these contentions before this Commission are totally false and also shows lack of bonafide of appellant.
Further reliance could be placed on the judgment passed by the National Commission in Consumer Case No. 190/2010 M/s.Arfat Petro Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. where the National Commission has held as under:
" Ref.No.IRDA/NL/CIR/Misc/1173/09/2015 date 24.9.2015 to CEOs of all General Insurance Companies. Circular ARB.P.459/2015 Page 17 of 22 Reg. Discharge voucher in settlement of the insurance companies are using 'discharge voucher' or 'settlement intimation voucher' or in some other name so that the claim is closed and does not remain outstanding in their books. However, of late the authority has been receiving complaints from aggrieved policyholders that the said 6 instrument of discharge voucher is being used by the insurers in the judicial for a with the plea that the full and final discharge given by the policyholders extinguish their rights to contest the claim before the court.
While the authority notes that the insurers need to keep their books of accounts in order, it is also necessary to note that insurers shall not use the instrument of discharge voucher as a means of estoppels against the aggrieved policyholders when such policy holder approaches judicial fora Accordingly insurers are hereby advised as under" where the liability and quantum of claim under a policy is established the insurers shall not withhold claim amounts. However, it should be clearly understood that execution of such vouchers does not foreclose the rights of policyholder to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora or any other fora established by law."
In view of the above, discharge voucher could not be taken as full and final payment and the complainant could not be restrained for lodging his genuine claim on the plea that full and final discharge voucher has been signed by him and this practice has been depricated by IRDA and so also the National 7 Commission and here in the present case the complainant could not explained the basis of proposal of Rs. 2,60,000/- when surveyor has assessed the higher amount and it could rightly been termed as unfair trade practice.
The other contention of the appellant is that amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- was credited to the account of complainant on 26.9.2016 and account statement has been submitted before this Commission as Anx. 3 which was admittedly not submitted before the Forum below. Be that may be the case but payment of some amount in the account of complainant gives no force to the appeal as without any cause appellant has paid less amount to the complainant whereas the surveyor has assessed the loss as Rs.6,10,529.30 hence, the claim has rightly been allowed.
The other contention of the appellant is that the Forum below has allowed the claim of Rs. 6,10,529/- whereas he had already paid the amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- but this contention has never been raised before the Forum below and even the statement of account has not been submitted before the Forum 8 below and the Forum below was justified in allowing the claim at the tune of amount which has been assessed by the surveyor.
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed on ground of delay as well as on merits.
(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta) Member President nm