M.L. Kathuria vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. , Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Sirsa

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/complainant against the impugned order dated 4.12.2007 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 2956 of 2002 & Appeal No. 3008 of 2002 Shri M.L. Kathuria Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased a Maruti Zen (VX) No. HR 24-E-9091 for a sum of Rs. 3,84,293/- with the help of loan taken from State Bank of Patiala. Vehicle was insured for the period 7.9.2000 to 6.9.2001. On 13.7.2001, car was stolen and FIR was lodged on 14.7.2001. Police submitted untraced report on 9.8.2001. Complainant submitted all the required documents to OP and OP paid Rs. 3,10,000/- taking the IEV value of the vehicle than the market value of the car on the date of theft. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint before the District Forum. OP/respondent contested complaint and submitted that, as complainant had accepted Rs.3,10,000/- as full and final settlement of his claim on 31.1.2002 and executed receipt, claim disbursement, journal voucher and discharge receipt in favour of OP, complaint is not maintainable. It was further submitted that value of the stolen car was assessed by surveyor and as per surveyor ''s report, payment was made; hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- after deducting 5% on account of depreciation along with 9% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by OP/respondent was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed deduction of 5% depreciation, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint, as payment was accepted under compulsion; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, as payment was accepted by complainant in full and final satisfaction, learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be dismissed

PERUSAL of record reveals that surveyor assessed loss of Rs.3,10,000/-. Respondent made payment of Rs.3,10,000/-, which was accepted by the petitioner without any protest. There is no iota of evidence on record to substantiate the contention of learned Counsel for petitioner that payment was accepted under compulsion/protest. Once, the party accepts payment as full and final satisfaction without any protest, that party cannot put forward again claim before the District Forum and learned State Commission has rightly allowed appeal and dismissed complaint by observing as under: "As regards the settlement made, the position of law in this regard is well settled in case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Srinivas Trading Co., 2003 (1) CLT 125 (NC), wherein the facts were that the complainant had given discharge voucher in full and final settlement and the payment was received on 1.9.1991 without protest or demur. On 14.9.1991, the complainant had written letter to the insurance company intimating that it was forced to give voucher in full and final settlement of the claim. Rejecting the stand of the complainant it was observed that the protest lodged by the complainant was not simultaneous because after the execution of the full and final settlement, neither it followed such execution immediately nor was any reason like undue influence, coercion of fraud being exercised by the petitioner was pleaded. It was held that no case was made out under the Act to go behind such full and final settlement and the order of the State Commission was modified. In case Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar versus Union of India (2006-3) PLR 76(SC). The offer was made by the Railways to the appellant that if was not acceptable, cheque should be returned forthwith failing which it would be deemed that the appellant accepted the offer in full and final settlement of the claim. The appellant accepted the two cheques sent by the Railways and encashed. It was concluded that it amounted the acceptance of the amount in full and final settlement of the claim. It was also laid down that the protest and non-acceptance must be conveyed before the cheques were encashed and if the cheques were encashed without protest, then it must be held that the offer stood unequivocally accepted and offeree cannot be permitted to change his mind after unequivocable acceptance of the offer. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (1) CPR 80 (SC), the facts were that five transit insurance were obtained for consignment to Sudan in 1990. On arrival, the consignments were found damaged on account of rust. The investigations were taken up as to at which stage the damage to the consignment could have occurred. A dispute was also raised between the parties as to who would be entitled to receive the claim amount as the shipment was on CIF basis. The matter was resolved and legalized documents were furnished to the appellant on 21.5.1993. The claim was finally settled on 8.4.1994 and the amount of Rs.70,38,038/- was paid to the respondent on 8.6.1994 who received the amount and gave the clean discharge. Thereafter, he raised the consumer dispute. It was held that claim was finally settled and payment was made and there was no delay in making the payment which would warrant an award of interest on delayed payment and for that reason order dated 8.9.2004 of the Hon ''ble Commission was set aside. In case Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another versus Bashir Ahmed Rangrej and bothers, 2000 CCJ 773 (J&K), it was observed that as the complaint filed after receiving the payment in respect of the loss of the property and executing the discharge voucher as per settlement, the complaint was not maintainable. In the light of above, stated principle laid down in the above mentioned case and the evidence adduced on record it has to be held that the complainant had accepted the amount of Rs.3,10,000/- while accepting the claim voluntarily and without any coercion exercised upon him. All these aspects have not been given due consideration by the District Forum while accepting the complaint to the extent noticed above and for that reason the order of District Forum, as such, cannot be sustained ".

We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.