GIAN CHAND GUPTA vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

-THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 5.3.2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed being meritless.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Sh. Gian Chand Gupta, appellant (complainant) was the owner of truck No. HP-64-5372 which was insured with the National Insurance Company vide insurance policy, whose copy is Annexure P-1 and was valid upto 27.1.2005. Unfortunately, the said truck met with an accident on 18.12.2004 as it collided with other truck bearing No. WB-03-1525 near Bud Bud Police Station in West Bengal regarding which FIR No. 117/2004 dated 18.12.2004 was lodged. In the said accident, the driver of appellant''s truck and two persons of other truck died and both the trucks were badly damaged. The appellant sent intimation to the Senior Branch Manager of National Insurance Company for spot survey on 22.12.2004. Accordingly, spot survey was conducted on 23.12.2004. The appellant submitted claim form, other documents and repair charges of damaged vehicle from Sikand & Company, Solan (HP) to the Insurance Company at Solan. The Surveyor was appointed who inspected the spot and documents were supplied to him as demanded by him. According to the report of Sikand & Company, Solan (dealer of TATA company) repair of the vehicle will cost more than Rs. 6,68,612 and the taxes and other expenses of new cabin and body repair expenses were to the tune of Rs. 85,000. Thus, the cost of repairs was more than Rs. 8 lacs whereas the truck was insured for Rs. 6,80,000. The appellant vide letter dated 27.1.2005 submitted that he had to spend Rs. 400 per day on the day and night care of the vehicle and his claim be settled and possession of the damaged vehicle be taken but the Insurance Company did not bother. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

The National Insurance Company of Solan Branch sent cheque of Rs. 2,20,100 to the appellant in full and final settlement of the claim. He received the cheque and lodged formal protest vide letter dated 29.8.2005, Annexure P-11.

NOW the main question to be determined is whether appellant had consented to the settlement of claim for Rs. 2,20,100 voluntarily without any pressure or he was coerced to accept the full and final settlement and had not given discharge certificate Annexure R-1 voluntarily. It is alleged by the appellant that he had lodged formal protest vide letter dated 29.8.2005 Annexure P-11 and also demanded the balance price. Admittedly complainant had accepted the cheque dated 4.8.2005 of State Bank of India, Annexure P-10. Further he had given discharge voucher Annexure R-1 for having accepted the amount of Rs. 2,20,100 in full and final settlement. The appellant had also written letter to the Insurance Company dated 11.2.2005 Annexure R-2 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,20,100 on cash loss basis as he was not in a position to get the vehicle repaired. The Surveyor vide his report Annexure R-4 dated 5.3.2005 had assessed the net liability on cash loss basis of Rs. 2,19,000 and vide letter dated 11.2.2005 the appellant had requested the Insurance Company to settle the case for Rs. 2,20,100 and accordingly the Insurance Company had settled the case for Rs. 2,20,100 and no protest was lodged at that time when he accepted the amount of Rs. 2,20,100 and had given complete discharge of his claim. NOW it does not lie in his mouth to say that he had accepted the amount under coercion or undue pressure. It is not the case that he immediately lodged protest with the Insurance Company. The first protest was lodged on 29.8.2005 i.e. after about 20 days of the acceptance of cheque i.e. 4.8.2005. The Hon''ble National Commission in Vipras Corpn. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2002) CPJ 367 (NC)=2003 (1) CPC 327, has held in similar circumstances that loss was paid as full and final settlement relying upon the report of Surveyor and payment was not open to challenge. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is not force in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.