Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Krishna Kant, Deputy Manager Legal, Chandigarh Vs. Anku Sood, H.P. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1107910
CourtHimachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided OnOct-10-2012
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.223 of 2011
JudgeSURJIT SINGH PRESIDENT, CHANDER SHEKHAR SHARMA, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PREM CHAUHAN, MEMBER
AppellantReliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Krishna Kant, Deputy Manager Legal, Chandigarh
RespondentAnku Sood, H.P.
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - comparative citation: 2013 (1) cpr 94 (hp) (full bench)surjit singh, president (oral). 1. respondent served through his brother, as per report of the process server. nobody appears for him. hence, proceeded exparte. 2. this appeal, under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 3rd may, 2011, of learned district consumer disputes redressal forum, mandi, whereby a complaint, under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986, filed against the appellant by respondent  anku sood, has been allowed and direction given to the appellant to pay a sum of 2.53 lacs, on account of additional insurance money,  with interest at the rate of 9% per annum,  and also to pay 3,000/-, as compensation and 2,500/-, as costs. 3. respondent owned a truck, which he got insured for a sum of 10.00 lacs, with the appellant. the period of insurance was from 08.05.2009 to 07.05.2010. earlier the truck was insured with some other insurance company, in the sum of          10,16,500/-,  and on expiry of the period of the previous policy, vehicle had been insured with the appellant. vehicle met with an accident on 29.06.2009 and was completely damaged. intimation of the accident was given to the appellant, who deputed a surveyor. the surveyor felt that the value of the vehicle at the time, when it was insured with the appellant, could not have been `10.00 lacs, as it was insured in the sum of `10,16,500/-, during the previous year and after one year, its value was supposed to have gone down considerably, it being a commercial vehicle. he assessed the value at `7.52 lacs. value of the salvage was assessed at `2.50 lacs. after reducing the value of salvage from the reassessed value of the truck, the surveyor recommended payment of a sum of 4.97 lacs. 4. on 8th march, 2010, respondent filed a complaint, under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986, alleging that despite a period of more than 8 months having lapsed since the reporting of the occurrence of the accident to the appellant, insurance money had not been paid. he sought issuance of a direction to the appellant for payment of the entire amount of money, for which the vehicle was insured, i.e. 10.00 lacs and also for payment of compensation and litigation expenses. 5. appellant filed a reply, in which it was stated that matter had been amicably settled between the appellant and the respondent, when loss assessment was being carried out and that the respondent agreed that the value of the truck at the time and its insurance be taken as `7.52 lacs, and the value of the salvage at `2.50 lacs. it was further pleaded that the respondent agreed to retain the salvage. it was stated that the respondent executed a consent letter on a stamp paper of `100/-, agreeing to receive a sum of `4.97 lacs, in full and final settlement of his claim by retaining the salvage. it was further stated that the aforesaid amount of `4.97 lacs, stood received by the respondent, vide cheque dated 16th january, 2010, against satisfaction voucher, annexure r-2 and discharge voucher also annexure r-2. 6. rejoinder was filed by the respondent, in which it was denied that the amount of 4.97 lacs, had been paid before the filing of the complaint. it was stated that the aforesaid amount of money had been paid after the filing of the complaint. with regard to consent letter, it was stated that the respondent had been coerced to agree for the receipt of lesser amount of money on account of insurance claim. 7. learned district forum, vide impugned order, concluded that the respondent was “forced to execute the consent letter in view of his financial position”. consequently, the complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay an additional amount of 2.53 lacs, on account of insurance claim. 8. we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. now, when we are in the middest of dictating this order, shri umesh kanwar, advocate has stood up and he says that he has been asked by ms. ritta goswami, advocate to put in appearance. we do not have the power of attorney of ms. ritta goswami, advocate on record. also, shri umesh kanwar, advocate has not filed any power of attorney or even memo. of appearance. 9. in the complaint, respondent did not say anything about his having been coerced or having felt compelled to sign the consent letter, because of tight financial position. the consent letter executed by the respondent is available on the record of the learned district forum. the same is annexure r-4. respondent does not deny having executed this consent letter. it was executed on 24.08.2009. in this letter, it is very specifically written that a sum of `4.97 lacs, was acceptable to the respondent in full and final settlement of the claim. this letter was executed in less than two months of the occurrence of the accident. normally, 2-3 months time is taken by the insurance companies to settle the claim. therefore, it cannot be said that just within two months of the occurrence of the accident, respondent felt coerced or compelled to execute the consent letter, annexure r-1, which is duly attested by two witnesses and attested by notary public. in any case, non-mention of this fact in the complaint amounts to suppression of true facts. it is only in the rejoinder that the respondent came up with the plea  of coercion because in the reply, appellant pleaded that there was a consent letter voluntarily executed by the respondent  to accept an amount of `4.97 lacs, in full and final settlement of his claim and also to retain the salvage. 10. appellant also pleaded in para 6 of the reply that the vehicle was being plied without there being a route permit, at the time, when the accident took place. respondent in his rejoinder did not deny this fact. the fact suggests that the respondent agreed to accept the amount of `4.97 lacs, on account of flaw in his claim, viz. the vehicle was being driven without a route permit, when the accident took place, and because of this flaw, he might not have expected  any  amount of money by way of insurance claim. 11. as a result of the above stated position, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and consequently dismiss the complaint. 12. one copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per rules.
Judgment:

Surjit Singh, President (Oral).

1. Respondent served through his brother, as per report of the Process Server. Nobody appears for him. Hence, proceeded exparte.

2. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 3rd May, 2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against the appellant by respondent  Anku Sood, has been allowed and direction given to the appellant to pay a sum of 2.53 lacs, on account of additional insurance money,  with interest at the rate of 9% per annum,  and also to pay 3,000/-, as compensation and 2,500/-, as costs.

3. Respondent owned a truck, which he got insured for a sum of 10.00 lacs, with the appellant. The period of insurance was from 08.05.2009 to 07.05.2010. Earlier the truck was insured with some other insurance company, in the sum of          10,16,500/-,  and on expiry of the period of the previous policy, vehicle had been insured with the appellant. Vehicle met with an accident on 29.06.2009 and was completely damaged. Intimation of the accident was given to the appellant, who deputed a surveyor. The surveyor felt that the value of the vehicle at the time, when it was insured with the appellant, could not have been `10.00 lacs, as it was insured in the sum of `10,16,500/-, during the previous year and after one year, its value was supposed to have gone down considerably, it being a commercial vehicle. He assessed the value at `7.52 lacs. Value of the salvage was assessed at `2.50 lacs. After reducing the value of salvage from the reassessed value of the truck, the surveyor recommended payment of a sum of 4.97 lacs.

4. On 8th March, 2010, respondent filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that despite a period of more than 8 months having lapsed since the reporting of the occurrence of the accident to the appellant, insurance money had not been paid. He sought issuance of a direction to the appellant for payment of the entire amount of money, for which the vehicle was insured, i.e. 10.00 lacs and also for payment of compensation and litigation expenses.

5. Appellant filed a reply, in which it was stated that matter had been amicably settled between the appellant and the respondent, when loss assessment was being carried out and that the respondent agreed that the value of the truck at the time and its insurance be taken as `7.52 lacs, and the value of the salvage at `2.50 lacs. It was further pleaded that the respondent agreed to retain the salvage. It was stated that the respondent executed a consent letter on a stamp paper of `100/-, agreeing to receive a sum of `4.97 lacs, in full and final settlement of his claim by retaining the salvage. It was further stated that the aforesaid amount of `4.97 lacs, stood received by the respondent, vide cheque dated 16th January, 2010, against satisfaction voucher, Annexure R-2 and discharge voucher also Annexure R-2.

6. Rejoinder was filed by the respondent, in which it was denied that the amount of 4.97 lacs, had been paid before the filing of the complaint. It was stated that the aforesaid amount of money had been paid after the filing of the complaint. With regard to consent letter, it was stated that the respondent had been coerced to agree for the receipt of lesser amount of money on account of insurance claim.

7. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, concluded that the respondent was “forced to execute the consent letter in view of his financial position”. Consequently, the complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay an additional amount of 2.53 lacs, on account of insurance claim.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. Now, when we are in the middest of dictating this order, Shri Umesh Kanwar, Advocate has stood up and he says that he has been asked by Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate to put in appearance. We do not have the Power of Attorney of Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate on record. Also, Shri Umesh Kanwar, Advocate has not filed any Power of Attorney or even memo. of appearance.

9. In the complaint, respondent did not say anything about his having been coerced or having felt compelled to sign the consent letter, because of tight financial position. The consent letter executed by the respondent is available on the record of the learned District Forum. The same is Annexure R-4. Respondent does not deny having executed this consent letter. It was executed on 24.08.2009. In this letter, it is very specifically written that a sum of `4.97 lacs, was acceptable to the respondent in full and final settlement of the claim. This letter was executed in less than two months of the occurrence of the accident. Normally, 2-3 months time is taken by the insurance companies to settle the claim. Therefore, it cannot be said that just within two months of the occurrence of the accident, respondent felt coerced or compelled to execute the consent letter, Annexure R-1, which is duly attested by two witnesses and attested by Notary Public. In any case, non-mention of this fact in the complaint amounts to suppression of true facts. It is only in the rejoinder that the respondent came up with the plea  of coercion because in the reply, appellant pleaded that there was a consent letter voluntarily executed by the respondent  to accept an amount of `4.97 lacs, in full and final settlement of his claim and also to retain the salvage.

10. Appellant also pleaded in para 6 of the reply that the vehicle was being plied without there being a route permit, at the time, when the accident took place. Respondent in his rejoinder did not deny this fact. The fact suggests that the respondent agreed to accept the amount of `4.97 lacs, on account of flaw in his claim, viz. the vehicle was being driven without a route permit, when the accident took place, and because of this flaw, he might not have expected  any  amount of money by way of insurance claim.

11. As a result of the above stated position, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and consequently dismiss the complaint.

12. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.