PT. AMAR GAUTTAM vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THE challenge in this appeal is to the order of the learned District Forum, Shimla, dated 19.7.93, whereby the complaint of the complainant has been dismissed.

THE relevant facts necessary to be referred to for determining the point in controversy are that the complainant/ appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the appellant) got his car Premier Padmini No. H.P.03-0454 insured with the respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the Assurance Company) for the period from 3.5.91 to 2.5.92 for a sum of Rs. 1,33,000/-. THE car, when the insurance policy was in force, unfortunately, met with an accident at Shimla on 22.10.91 and was badly damaged. THE claim was preferred by the appellant with the Assurance Company and it appears that vide letter dated 1.10.92 (Annexure R-III), the appellant has accepted the amount of Rs. 77,146/- in full and final settlement of his claim and received the amount in two instalments of Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 22,146/- as is evident from the receipts Annexures R-IV and R-V. Mr. Rajiv Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the amount given by the Assurance Company to the appellant for compensating the loss is not adequate and it should be enhanced. On the other hand, Mr. Naresh Gupta, learned Counsel for the Assurance Company argues that the quantum of compensation has been finally settled between the parties and that the appellant has accepted the amount of Rs. 77,146/- in full and final settlement of his claim and has already received the amount in two instalments of Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 22,146/-.

We have considered the respective contentions of the parties. We have seen Annexure RIII from which it is apparent that the matter has been settled between the parties and that against the amount of Rs. 77,146/- in full and final settlement of his claim, the appellant has received the whole amount in two instalments of Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 22,146/-.

THE National Commission in New India Assurance Company v. Achhar Kumar Garg, I (1996) CPJ 140 (NC)=1996 (1) CPR 4, has held that: "Where once a claim is paid and received in full and final settlement, there is no deficiency in service and no relief against Insurance Company can be granted under the Consumer Protection Act".

In view of the authority of the National Commission and facts and circumstances of the case, there is no infirmity in the judgment of learned District Forum, and no interference is called for. However, Mr. Rajiv Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the final instalment of Rs. 22,146/- has been received by the appellant vide Annexure R-V subject to the rights of the appellant and, therefore, he is entitled to repudiate the settlement. We are unable to accept this contention. Once the final settlement has been reached between the parties and the amount has been sent by the Assurance Company in terms of the settlement, it is not open for the appellant to repudiate that settlement, more particularly when already he has received the first instalment of Rs. 55,000/-without ''subject to his rights''. This argument, therefore, has to be rejected.

THERE is no force in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.