IMPORTANT POINT
If amount offered by insurance company is accepted by legal heirs as full and final settlement without any protest, legal heirs cannot submit the claim for enhanced amount in absence of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation and coercion.

B.B. Vagyani, President—This appeal filed by org. complainant in consumer complaint in 67/05 is directed against the dismissal order dt. 31/07/06 passed by District Consumer Forum, Satara.

2. We heard Adv. Vivek Salunkhe for appellant(Org. Complainant). Vakalatnama of Adv. Anand Kumar for respondent(Org. Opp. Party) is taken on record.

3. The deceased Shri Pandurang Shymrao Bhosale-Patil had taken Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy from insurance company for period from 7/2/99 to 16/02/2011. He paid Rs. 1,500/- by way of premium to the insurance company. The insured died in an accident on 16/02/04. Therefore, legal heirs of insured submitted claim to the insurance company. Insurance company informed the legal heirs of the deceased that Janata Accident Policy was cancelled as a policy decision. The insurance company further informed the legal heirs of deceased that the premium amount was adjusted towards Nagari Suraksha Policy, which was for Rs. 3,50,000/-. However, the claimants filed consumer complaint before the Forum below for grant of assured sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable under Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy. The said complaint was resisted by insurance company on the ground that as per clause no. 5 of Janata Personal Accident Policy. All Janata Personal Accident Insurance policies have been cancelled. It is brought to our notice that the insurance company paid Rs. 3,50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased. The legal heirs received Rs. 3,50,000/- as a full and final settlement of claim under Nagari Suraksha Policy. In discharge voucher the legal heirs specifically mentioned in vernacular language that other than Nagari Suraksha Policy they did not have any claim under any other insurance policy. According to the legal heirs, the amount was received under protest. Inadvertently, what is written in the voucher was not struck out. They wrote a letter to the insurance company on 12/01/05 to that effect.

4. The Forum below after hearing both the sides and taking into consideration well-settled legal position, dismissed the complaint. The dismissal order does not appear bad in law. It is well settled legal position that insurance company can cancel the policy unilaterally in terms of condition no. 5. The claim arising out of Nagari Suraksha Policy has been already paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. As per well-settled legal position of law if, the amount offered by the insurance company is accepted by legal heirs as full and final settlement without any protest, legal heirs can not submit the claim for enhanced amount in absence of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation and coercion. Legal heirs have not made out a case of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation and coercion. Therefore, subsequent claim of legal heirs made at belated stage is not maintainable in law. Dismissal order passed by the Forum below is perfectly legal and correct. No interference is called.

5. Ld. Adv. Anand Kumar has filed his vakalatnama and has deputed one Shri Bablukumar to argue the matter. The authority letter reads as under:

“I, advocate Shri Anand Kumar do hereby appoint Shri Babloo Kumar, having is residence address at 105, Sector 5, Kharghar,(sic) peace in all matters at the consumer forums in and around Mumbai under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On my behalf and in any name and protect the interest of the parties on whose behalf I have filed my vakalatnama.

I further empower the said Shri Babloo Kumar to appear, act, sign all the papers documents, and also give evidence on my behalf and in my name and do all the acts necessary in respect of what is stated aforesaid on my behalf and in my name before the Dist. Forums, in and around Mumbai on my behalf and in my name in respect of what is stated aforesaid.

6. We fail to understand as to how an Advocate, who is engaged by the insurance company can delegate his authority to his clerk. What is stated in the authority letter appears to be very strange.