State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Manmohan Kaur vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 23 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.850 of 2003
Date of institution: 02.07.2003
Date of decision : 23.12.2009
Mrs. Manmohan Kaur, resident of 20-Chowk Farid, Katra Sher Singh, Amritsar.
...Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager Lawarance Road,
Amritsar.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 2.6.2003
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for
Sh.Pradeep Bedi, Advocate.
LT.COL.DARSHAN SINGH (RETD.) MEMBER
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant / complainant ( Mrs. Manmohan Kaur) got her Tata Indica car insured for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- with the opposite party vide insurance cover No.20152037 on 17.11.2001 for a period of one year. The complainant lodged complaint and got car repaired from M/s. Automobile Kapoor's India Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar and paid total amount of Rs.16,840/- vide invoice No.02181 dated 6.7.2002. She submitted invoice and other documents to opposite party for sanction of claim. The opposite parties passed and paid the amount of Rs.9876/- against the claim and refused to make the payment of balance amount. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, the complainant filed consumer complaint with the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum") and prayed for direction to the opposite party for payment of balance amount with interest @ 18% per annum. She also claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/-. First Appeal No.850 of 2003 2
2. The opposite party filed written reply and it was submitted that loss was assessed by an independent surveyor to the tune of Rs.9876/-. The cheque for the said amount was received by the complainant towards full and final settlement of claim on 14.8.2002. She signed discharge voucher in favour of opposite party and discharge voucher was signed without any protest. The claim was paid in accordance with assessment made by the surveyor and there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
3. The complainant subsequently filed supplementary affidavit stating that the opposite party received the receipt in advance from the complainant without describing the amount of claim and assured that full and final amount of claim was sanctioned and same would be paid to her. The complainant alleged the above receipts was result of misrepresentation by the opposite party.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective version by way of affidavits / documents.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, the finding of learned District Forum was that opposite party paid the claim amount in accordance with the report of surveyor and the complainant accepted this amount without protest and without any fraud or misrepresentation etc. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed vide impugned order dated 2.6.2003.
6. The claim of the complainant / appellant is that she is entitled to receive the amount actually spent by her for repair of insured car. Learned counsel for appellant prayed that appeal be accepted and the order of learned District Forum, Amritsar be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent argued that amount of repair was paid as per surveyor report for full and final settlement of claim. He prayed that there was no merit in the appeal and same be dismissed.
8. Record has been perused and submissions have been considered.
9. The complainant has admitted that the opposite party paid Rs.9876/- and she accepted that amount. The cheque issued by the opposite party was deposited by the complainant in the bank vide pay in slip Ex.C5. Ex.R5 is copy First Appeal No.850 of 2003 3 of voucher which is to the effect that complainant received amount of Rs.9876/- in full and final settlement of the claim. Voucher admittedly bears the signature of complainant. It has been held by this Commission in FA No.1258 of 2001 decided on 14.12.2007 Sudarshan Kumar Vs. United India Insurance that when the payment is received by the complainant in full and final settlement voluntarily and without any protest, the claim would be barred from filing the complaint again. In the present case, the complainant received amount in full and final settlement of claim amount. No protest was lodged at that time. Even in the complaint, it is not pleaded that voucher was signed by the complainant under coercion, fraud and misrepresentation. Legal notice Ex.C3 was given by the complainant to the opposite party on 9.9.2002. It is thus clear that no protest was lodged by the complainant. The plea subsequently raised in the supplementary affidavit Ex.C2 that the opposite party received pre-receipt by misrepresentation is clearly after thought and cannot hold the ground. The loss was assessed by the surveyor at Rs.9876/- vide report Ex.R3 and claim was paid by the opposite party. The complainant accepted the amount without any protest. For the first time she made protest by way of notice merely three weeks after receiving the amount.
10. In view of above discussion, we do not find any irregularity and illegality in the impugned order dated 2.6.2003 and uphold the same. There is no merit in the appeal and same stands dismissed.
11. The arguments in the case were heard on 10.12.2009 and the order was reserved. Now the parties be communicated about the same.
12. The appeal could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Lt. Col. Darshan Singh-Retd.) Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member December 23, 2009.
Davinder