State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohinder Singh vs United India Insurance Company Limited ... on 22 August, 2013
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No: 46/2013.
Date of Decision: 22.08.2013.
...................................................................................
Mohinder Singh s/o Sh. Vikram Singh,
Proprietor, Mahinder Electronics,
Padiarkhar, Tehsil Palampur,
District Kangra, H.P.
... Appellant.
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office, Dharamshala,
Near Red Cross Building,
Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Registered & Head Office,
34, Whites Road, Chennai-500014.
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Registered and Head Office,
The New India Assurance Building,
87, Mahatma Gandhi,
Fort-Mumbai-40001.
... Respondents.
....................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1&2: Mr. Pritam Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate.
..............................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
{2} Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant had been running some business. He had insured his stock-in-trade with two different Insurance Companies, impleaded as respondents herein. Stock was insured with respondent No.1-United India Insurance Company Limited in the sum of `3.00 lacs, and with respondent No.3-New India Assurance Company Limited in the sum of `7.00 lacs. The policies were effective from 20.12.2008 to 19.12.2009 (in the case of respondent No.1) and 26.11.2009 to 25.11.2010 (in the case of respondent No.3). On 06.12.2009, when both the policies were in force, a fire broke out, in which, according to the appellant, stock worth `6.00 lacs was destroyed. Intimation of the fire incident was given to both the Insurance Companies.
3. A common surveyor was deputed by both the insurers, who assessed the loss at `1,00,695/-. In proportion to the sum assured, the surveyor recommended payment of a sum of `1,30,486/- by respondent No.3, and `50,208/- by respondent No.1. The respondents paid the money in accordance with the aforesaid report of the surveyor, in the months of June {3} and July, 2010. Eleven months after receiving the aforesaid amount of money from the respondents, appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that when, after receiving the aforesaid amount(s) of money, he contacted the opposite parties/respondents for payment of the remaining amount of money, he was shocked to hear from them that the money, which they had paid, was in full and final satisfaction of his claim. On these allegations, appellant sought a direction to the respondents to pay the difference between the amount of money paid to him and the amount of alleged actual loss of `6.00 lacs sustained by him in the fire incident.
4. Complaint was contested by both the respondents, who filed separate replies. In the replies, it was stated that the appellant had received the money, as per assessment done by the surveyor, in full and final satisfaction of his case.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Admittedly, the appellant had signed discharge vouchers, wherein it is mentioned that the money was received by him in full and final satisfaction of his claim. Appellant does not deny his signatures on the vouchers, nor has he stated in the complaint that he {4} was deceived or coerced to sign the vouchers or he was compelled by the circumstances to accept the money. In the rejoinder, he did say that he had received the money under protest, but the vouchers do not record that the appellant protested about the amount of money offered to him for the loss sustained by him. Not only this, in the complaint, he did not say anything about the discharge vouchers and signing thereof by him.
7. Learned counsel representing appellant submits that misrepresentation was made to the appellant by the respondents, when he accepted the money, no such plea was raised by the appellant in the complaint or the rejoinder, explicitly or even impliedly.
8. In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed.
9. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member August 22, 2013.
DC Dhiman)