ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Shaheenkhan Mubassir Alam Khan

THIS appeal filed by the Insurance Company is directed against the order dated 23.7.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad. We propose to dispose of this appeal at the admission stage.

RESPONDENT /org. complainant had purchased a vehicle on 21.7.1997 by obtaining a loan worth of Rs. 2,85,000 from Bombay Mercantile Bank, CIDCO. Said vehicle was insured with present appellant. The said vehicle was stolen from Talegaon Dubhade, Pune on 16.3.1999. FIR was also lodged. The Investigating Officer failed to trace out the stolen vehicle, nor arrested the thief. The owner of the vehicle submitted a claim to the Insurance Company. Insurance Company offered Rs. 1,49,500 to the owner of the vehicle as full and final settlement of the claim. The said amount was accepted by the owner of the vehicle under protest. After lapse of few days, complainant filed consumer complaint No. 2/2001 before the District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad. The said complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company. After perusal of the entire record and after having heard the rival submissions advanced at the Bar, District Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,500 to the owner of the vehicle together with interest @ 12% p.a.

FEELING aggrieved by the impugned order, original O.P. has filed this appeal. We heard the learned Advocate Mr. V.N. Upadhye for the appellant/org. O.P. and Mr. Vijaykumar Yelnoorkar, Advocate for the respondent/org. complainant. From perusal of the entire record, it is revealed that the Insurance Company offered Rs. 1,49,500 to the owner of the vehicle as full and final settlement of the claim. The owner of the vehicle accepted the amount offered by the Insurance Company on 23.3.2000. The amount was accepted under protest. Owner of the vehicle after lapse of 9 months filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum. It is admitted fact that there is no whisper with regard to fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and coercion in the matter of execution of receipt of Rs. 1,49,500. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajmer Cotton General Mills and Another, II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=1999 CCJ 1158, has held that under given circumstances, the consumer complaint is not maintainable. In the said case, the claim was settled by the Insurance Company. Proposal of the Insurance Company was accepted by the owner of the vehicle. After accepting the amount in full and final settlement of all the claims by executing discharge voucher, the owner of the vehicle filed consumer complaint. Supreme Court held that owner of the vehicle is estopped from making any further claim from the insurer, after executing the discharge voucher voluntarily. Supreme Court further observed that in absence of pleadings or evidence that the execution of discharge voucher was under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, coercion or the like consumer complaint is not maintainable.

RATIO of M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajmer Cotton General Mills and Another (referred supra) is squarely applicable to the facts in the present case. Insurance Company offered Rs. 1,49,500 to the owner of the vehicle by way of full and final settlement of all the claims. Owner of the vehicle voluntarily accepted the amount offfered by the Insurance Company and executed discharge voucher. In the complaint filed by the owner of the vehicle there is no whisper that execution of discharge voucher was under fraud, under influence, misrepresentation, coercion or like. Under the circumstances, consumer complaint filed by the owner of the vehicle is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. District Consumer Forum has not taken into consideration the well settled legal position. District Consumer Forum has completely lost sight of the absence of element of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, coercion.

MATERIAL placed on record would clearly indicate that the owner of the vehicle signed discharge voucher voluntarily. There was no element of fraud. There was no undue influence. There was no misrepresentation. Similarly there was no element of coercion. After having accepted the amount offered by the Insurance Company is full and final settlement of all the claims and after having executed discharge voucher voluntarily, the owner of the vehicle is estopped from claiming additional amount from the Insurance Company.

AFTER having scanned the material on record and after having heard the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and having kept the well settled legal position in mind, we are of the clear opinion that the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum suffers from illegality and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. ORDER 1. Appeal No. 1523/2002 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. 2. Impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum is quashed and set aside. 3. Appeal No. 1523 -A/2002 filed by the respondent/org. complainant stands dismissed. 4. No order as to costs. 5. Pronounced and dictated in the open Court. 6. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the party. Ordered accordingly.

-