NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ACHHAR KUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal No. 239 / 93 by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the Cross Appeal No. 297/93 by Shri Achhar Kumar Garg, the Complainants are directed against the Order dated 29.4.1993 passed by the Punjab State Commission at Chandigarh partially allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite Party to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 2,10,000/- to the Complainant from the expiry of four weeks after lodging his complaint with the Opposite Party till the date of payment i.e. 23.10.92 besides the costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute may first be noticed. The Complainant had insured his truck bearing No. PB-13-2003 with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short the Insurance Company) for the period 20.6.1990 to 19.6.1991 for Rs. 3,40,000/-vide Policy No. 3135220201927/ 125. During the subsistence of the policy the truck was set ablaze on 7.3.1991. The Complainant lodged his claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company deputed one J.S. Singh and Co. for the spot survey. The said Surveyor visited the spot of the accident and carried out the survey and submitted his spot survey report to the Insurance Company on 22.4.1991. The Insurance Company then deputed Shri Swarandeep and Co. for the final survey of the vehicle and the said Surveyor has made a detailed assessment of the loss and submitted his report to the Insurance Company on 31.5.1991. During the course of survey, the said Surveyor discussed the claim with the Complainant and the Complainant agreed for settlement of the claim for a sum of Rs. 1,47,000/- on repair basis as disclosed in the letter dated 23.5.1991 sent to the Surveyor. The Complainant later on, on second thought, requested the Insurance Company vide his letter dated 30.7.1991 that his claim be settled on total loss basis and not on repair basis as had been agreed by him earlier. The Complainant was asked to submit certain documents which could not be verified by the above said Surveyor. The certificate of registration, the road permit and the driving licence being essential documents before any claim could be paid under the policy of insurance were called by the Insurance Company for verification. The Complainant informed the Insurance Company that as the documents had been burnt along with the vehicle he had already applied for the duplicate papers of the vehicle. While the matter was pending a further investigation, survey and assessment was carried out through M/s. K. Lal Bansal & Co. The matter was discussed at different levels with the Complainant and he agreed for settlement of the claim on total loss basis for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim vide his letter dated 25.9.1992. The Insurance Company accordingly made the payment to the Complainant after execution of the discharge vouchers by the Complainant in full and final settlement of his claim.

(3.) WE have gone through the records with the help of the Counsel appearing for the parties and considered their oral submissions at the hearing. The Complainant attempted to resile from the letter dated 25.9.1992. The State Commission, in view of the facts pleaded and the circumstances brought on record, found that "it is unable to believe that the consent letter dated 25.9.1995 was not executed by the Complainant voluntarily and he was compelled to do so by the Opposite Party". The Complainant's consent letter dated 25.9.1992 was itself given voluntarily and without any compulsion and in full and final settlement of the claim. It is also evident from the facts narrated above that there was no avoidable delay in the settlement of insurance claim by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had immediately surveyed and assessed the loss and the Complainant earlier consented for the settlement at Rs. 1,47,000/- on repair basis and thereafter made a representation to consider his claim on total loss basis and denied having agreed for the said amount. The essential documents in respect of the vehicle and the driving licence were not produced by the Complainant on the plea that the same were burnt alongwith the vehicle and he had applied for the duplicate documents. On these facts the Insurance Company had to depute investigators to verify the same. Apart from it, the Complainant had received a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- in full and final settlement against discharge receipts. The Counsel for the Insurance Company is right in his submission that the Complainant having settled the claim in full and final settlement after giving consent letter and also accepting the amount after executing the discharge voucher without any protest or remarks is estopped from raising any further claim. This Commission has already taken the view that where once the claim is paid and received in full and final settlement, there is no deficiency in service and no relief can be granted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.