Ajay Verma vs United India Insurance Company through its Branch Manager

THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, State Commission), Panchkula, Haryana.

VIDE impugned order, appeal filed by respondent-Insurance Company against order dated 5th June, 2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, District Forum), Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri was allowed and complaint filed by petitioner was dismissed. Brief facts of this case are that a Maruti Zen Car HR-02-E-4578 was insured with respondent from 31st August, 2001 to 30th August, 2002. The said car met with an accident on 6th April, 2002. Claim of the petitioner was settled by the respondent in view of the report submitted by Sandeep Kumar, Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor and petitioner received a sum of Rs.61,251/- within 22 days from the date of accident, as full and final settlement of his claim. Thereafter, petitioners filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short Act) on the ground that he has suffered the loss of Rs.1,15,282/- and respondent is liable to pay the balance amount.

District Forum vide its order dated 5th June, 2003 allowed the claim of the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay Rs.28,925/- alongwith 12% interest from the date of accident till the date of realisation and also burdened the respondent with cost of Rs.2,000/-.

IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner submitted an invoice of Rs.90,176/- towards repair of the car but respondent gave cheque for Rs.61,251/- only and the same was received by the petitioner under protest as word U/P has been mentioned by the petitioner alongwith his signature which depicts that it was received under protest. IT is also contended that petitioner immediately vide its letter dated 30th May, 2002, informed the respondent that he has accepted this cheque as a part payment under protest. Since petitioner has not received the full payment of his claim, it was well within his right to file the complaint before the District Forum and in support of his contentions learned counsel cited a decision of this Commission in M/s Gowtham Granites Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (Original Petition No.123 of 2000) decided on 14th September, 2010.

ON the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that sum of Rs.61,251/- was received by the petitioner in full and final settlement of his claim, which is clear from the voucher dated 30th May, 2002 signed by the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner himself is an advocate who never made any protest at that very time and now he cannot repudiate the claim which has finally been settled. The petitioner is blowing hot and cold at the same moment as during the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner has received a cheque of Rs.61,251/- under protest since petitioner has written U/P alongwith signature on the voucher. However, this stand of the petitioner is contrary to the stand taken by him in his complaint. The complaint states; The complainant received that cheque under protest and the company did not permit the complainant to write this thing of under protest on the voucher and therefore the complainant served the opposite party vide his registered A.D. letter dated 30.5.2002 that he has received the cheque No.133807 dated 29.5.2002 of Corporation Bank, Yamuna Nagar under protest and that the deduction is illegal and that the has accepted it as part payment under protest reserving his right. As per complaint, respondent did not permit the complainant to write under protest on the voucher. Further, petitioner has nowhere stated in the complaint as to who stopped him from writing the word under protest on the voucher. On the other hand, in voucher dated 30th May, 2010 it has been clearly printed as under: - Received from UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. the aforesaid sum in full and final discharge of claims upon them, as per the said particulars. Sd/-

ONCE having signed the voucher, now it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to put up a new story. It is manifestly clear from this voucher, that sum of Rs.61,251/- was received towards full and final settlement.

MOREOVER, another fact to be noted in this case is that the petitioner himself has placed on record, copy of two receipts (Annexure-P4 and P5) with regard to the payment made to Pandit Automobiles Ltd. In Annexure P4, it is mentioned that petitioner has paid Rs.30,000/- as advance against Bill No.8720/10.5.2002. However, that bill h as not been placed on record, whereas Annexure P5 states that Rs.60,166/- has been paid by the petitioner to Pandit Automobiles Ltd. on account of workshop service. Annexure-P5, nowhere state that sum of Rs.30,000/- paid as advance has been adjusted or it was in addition to advance of Rs.30,000/-. Thus, from Exhibit P5, it is clear that petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.60,176/- towards workshop charges. The Judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case it was observed; As is manifest from the aforesaid Inter office Memo dated 4.3.1998 the amount of Rs.61,37,502/- was approved on Ex-gratia basis and not on merits of the claim.

In the case in hand, this is not the situation, since no Ex-gratia payment was approved in this case and whatever payment was made to the petitioner it was towards full and final settlement.

IN this regard it will be fruitful to reproduce the relevant findings of the State Commission which read as under: - It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that once the complainant had received an amount of Rs.61,251/- in full and final settlement of his claim, thereafter he cannot reopen his claim. It is well settled principle of law that the complainant can re-open his claim only on the ground that his signatures were obtained by the INsurance Company by playing any fraud and misrepresentation. Admittedly, in the present case the complainant is an Advocate, Therefore, any case of fraud and misrepresentation does not arise and once the claim has been settled the same cannot be reopened by filing complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Reliance is placed on the observations made in case of United INdia INsurance Co. vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. Etc. 1992 (2) CPC 601 (S.C.) wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held: INsurance claim-Full and final settlement-Where claim has been accepted without any objection, full and final settlement of claim was made by insurer, claimant cannot be allowed any further relief. But mere execution of discharge voucher cannot deprive the claimant of consequential relief particularly when such discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or under coercion. IN the instant case complainant failed to prove any such reason, he therefore, was not entitled to any further relief. Even delay of few months taken in settlement of claim does not constitute deficiency in service. Order of State Commission restored. Order passed by National Commission set aside. The facts of the instant case are fully covered by the authority cited supra. IN another case law cited in National INsurance Company Ltd. vs. Kuka Rice & General Mills, 2008 (1) CPC 28 (Haryana), this Commission had held that once final settlement of claim was accepted by the complainant without any protest it was not proper for the District Forum to enhance the claim and the order of the District Forum was set aside.

Thus, it is apparently clear that no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed by the State Commission which would call for interference by this Commission.

THE present revision petition is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/. Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost in Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within one month from today. List on 30th May, 2011 for compliance.