JOGA SINGH vs National Insurance Co Ltd

CHALLENGE in these proceedings is to the order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in first appeal Nos. 2184 and 2918 of 2007. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the common order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum in complaint No. 1232 of 2006. The complaint related to the non-settlement of insurance claim in respect of Maruti Baleno Car insured by the complainant with the opposite party-National Insurance Co. Ltd. in the sum of Rs. 6,31,131. The vehicle met with an accident on 11.2.2006 and severely damaged. The Surveyor appointed had assessed the loss at Rs. 3,47,560 as against the estimated cost of repair at Rs. 5,17,140 submitted by Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., the authorized dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited at Jagadhari, Haryana. It appears that after filing of the complaint, the Insurance Company remitted a sum of Rs. 3,47,560 to the complainant assuming it a full and final discharge of their liability. However, considering that the payment was not full and final discharge of the claim, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the total insured amount after adjusting the amount already paid. Aggrieved by the said order the Insurance Company filed appeal before the State Commission and pleaded that the payment of Rs. 3.47,560 was mads in full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant and the complainant had expressed full satisfaction in the matter on receipt of the said amount. This plea weighed with the State Commission and accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

WE have heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Garg, leaned Counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. S. L. Gupta, learned Counsel representing the opposite parties and have considered their respective submissions.

THERE is unusual delay in filing the present proceedings before this Commission but certain medical certificates of the petitioner have been brought on record to show that he was suffering from disease and disorders including High BP, Migrane and viral fever, etc. due to which he could not take steps to file revision petition within time. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the present revision petition.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner would assail the order of the State Commission on the ground that the State Commission has not gone deep into the issue as to whether the payment of Rs. 3,47,560 could be considered to be full and final discharge of the liability of the Insurance Company and whether the complainant was estopped from making the claim despite receipt of the said amount. There appears to be force in this contention because as per the material available on record, estimated cost of the repair given by the authorized dealer is Rs. 5,17,140. Therefore, the surveyor was not justified in restricting the assessment of the loss at much lesser amount i.e. Rs. 3,47,560. Payment of the said amount cannot be said to be in full and final discharge of the liability of the Insurance Company. The entire amount which the complainant is liable to pay to the dealer has not been paid and the dealer despite having received a sum of Rs. 3,47,560, has not released the car to the complainant and withholding the car due to non-payment of the balance amount at Rs. 1,69,580.

IN our view, it would adequately meet the ends of justice if we direct the Insurance Company to pay at least half of the remaining amount of the said balance amount i.e. Rs. 84,790 to the complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

THE revision petition stands disposed of accordingly in these terms. Revision Petition disposed of.