ASHWANI AGGARWAL vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., AMBALA

THE appellant Ashwani Aggarwal had presented the complaint before the District Forum, Ambala which stands dismissed by its order dated the 21st of January, 1991 and is under appeal. THE gravame of the complainant''s case is that he had purchased a motorcycle which he got insured with the respondent United India Insurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Subsequently the said motorcycle was stolen and remained untraced and the complainant filed his claim with the respondent Insurance Company who admittedly paid a sum of Rs. 17,600/- only against the said policy. THE appellant stand was that he was entitled to the full amount of Rs. 20,000/- and thus, therefore, claim a balance of Rs. 2,400/- as a redress.

IN the written statement the respondent Company took the firm stand that the complainant had already accepted a sum of Rs. 17,600/- without any protest in full and final satisfaction of his claim vide discharge certificate duly issued and signed by him. A preliminary objection was raised that in the light of the above the appellant had no locus-standi to present the complaint. On merits it was explained that the amount of Rs. 17,600/- was duly worked out after deducting depreciation value of the motorcycle and keeping in view the assessment report of the surveyor. Further the complainant being fully satisfied and even issued a letter of subrogation in favour of the respondent Company in the event of motorcycle being recovered. Somewhat surprisingly, the complainant did not led any evidence even by way of his own affidavit on the record and rested contents on the somewhat sketchy complaint by way of a letter addressed to the President of the Forum and the documents attached thereto. The respondent on the other hand, apart from other evidence placed on record Annexure B, the discharge certificate admittedly signed and issued by the complainant. The subrogation certificate marked ''C'' was also brought on the record and the authenticity of these and other relevant documents was not put in dispute.

The District Forum in a fairly detailed order considered the respective stand and came to the conclusion that the discharge certificate marked ''B'' admittedly signed and executed by the complainant in full and final satisfaction of his claim was binding upon him. It rejected the stand of the appellant that he had signed the same without knowing its contents on the grounds that a person of his standing and education hold the responsible post of a Branch Manager of the nationalised Bank (and often dealing with discharge certificate and subrogation letters in due course) could hardly take the plea that he was not bound by the same. It was further noticed that neither in the pleadings nor in the course of the documents was it anybody case that any fraud had been practiced upon the complainant in obtaining his signature on the discharge certificate. Concluding that the complainant could not be allowed to approbate and raprobate and he was bound by his deed. The District Forum dismissed the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.