JAGJEET SINGH vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THE petitioner/complainant availed a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/ - from the State Bank of India, Barnala. The aforesaid bank arranged an insurance cover for the cattle and the equipment which were financed by the bank. The insurance premium, according to the complainant was deducted by the bank from his account. The insurance policy was issued in the name of State Bank of Patiala, ADB Barnala A/c Jagjeet Singh.

THE case of the complainant is that on 9/10 -06 -2011, a severe thunder storm hit his cattle shed with a high impact, resulting in the shed being crushed and its roof, columns, boundary as well as enclosures getting severely damaged. The complainant reported his loss to the insurance company. He independently approached one architect who assessed the loss at Rs. 5,62,000/ -.When the matter was taken up with the insurance company, a surveyor was appointed and the said surveyor, after visiting the spot, assessed the damages to the shed at Rs. 1,23,038/ - The complainant signed a consent letter in favour of the insurance company agreeing to accept the assessment made by the surveyor, who had computed the liability of the insurance company at Rs. 1,23,038/ -. A discharge voucher was also signed by the complainant and the cheque of Rs. 1,23,038/ - was credited to the account of the complainant. Since the complainant was not satisfied with the aforesaid amount he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company inter alia on the ground that the loss was assessed by the surveyor at Rs. 1,23,038/ - and the assessment made by the surveyor was accepted by the complainant under his signature. It was also stated in the reply that the complainant had, while receiving the cheque of Rs. 1,23,308/ - signed the voucher dated 12 -09 -2011 and later got the cheque encashed. According to the insurance company the complainant was trying to cock up a false story in order to get a higher compensation.

THE District Forum, vide its order dated 22 -08 -2012, directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,77,062/ - to the complainant along with interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum. It was also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/ - as compensation to him.

BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the insurance company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 21 -07 -2014 allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company holding that having accepted the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,23,038/ - in full and final settlement of his claim, the complainant was precluded from claiming a higher amount. Being aggrieved from dismissal of his complaint, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition. The learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that contrary stands were taken by the insurance company and the bank with respect to the handing over the cheque of Rs. 1,23,038/ - to the complainant. According to the insurance company the aforesaid cheque was sent directly to the complainant, whereas according to the bank the cheque was received by them and thereafter it was deposited in the account of the complainant after taking his oral consent in this regard. In our view the aforesaid contradiction in the stand taken by the insurance company and the bank as regards the manner in which the cheque of Rs. 1,23,038/ - got credited to the account of the complainant, would be absolutely immaterial. What is material in our view is that the complainant signed the consent letter dated 13 -08 -2011. The said letter, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: "I/We finally agree with the survey and loss assessment as full and final settlement of my/our claim to my/our entire satisfaction made by Sh. Dinesh K. Goyal, Surveyor in respect of the loss occurred on 9/10 -06 -2011 subject to policy terms and conditions and admission of liabilities by the underwriters."

IT has come in the reply of the insurance company that the complainant had also signed the discharge voucher, accepting the cheque of Rs. 1,23,038/ -in satisfaction of the claim lodged by him. This is not the case of the complainant that the aforesaid discharge voucher was not signed by him. Though the learned counsel for the complainant contends before us that the consent letter was a forged document, we find no averment to this effect in the complaint since nowhere it is alleged that the signature of the complainant on the consent letter have been forged. There is no such averment even with respect to the signature on the discharge voucher. Therefore, we are satisfied that the complainant consciously accepted the amount of Rs. 1,23,038/ -, which the insurance company offered to him on the basis of the report of surveyor. In this regard, we may also note that even after credit of Rs. 1,23,038/ - to his account the complainant did not write any protest letter to the insurance company or to the bank claiming that the aforesaid amount was not accepted by him in full and final settlement of his claim. The complainant has not told us exactly on which date the aforesaid amount was credited in his bank account but it is stated in the complaint that somewhere around October 2012 he had come to know about the aforesaid credit. Admittedly, no notice or protest letter was written by the complainant, either to the insurance company or to the bank, even after coming to know of the aforesaid credit. Had he not accepted the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,23,038/ - in full and final settlement of his claim, he would certainly have written to the insurance company and/or the bank protesting the aforesaid credit in his account and stating that he was not ready to accept the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement of claim. That having not been done and the complaint having been filed only in November, 2011, we are satisfied that the complainant had accepted the amount of Rs. 1,23,038/ - in full and final settlement of his claim which he had lodged with the insurance company. Consequently he is estopped from claiming a higher amount and the complaint filed by him was clearly not maintainable.

FOR the reasons stated herein above we find no infirmity in the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.