2010(1) CPR 301
CHHATTISARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
S.C. Vyas, President; Smt. Veena Misra and Shri V.K. Patil, Members
Lakhminder Singh Walia —Appellant
versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
Appeal No. 432/2008
Decided on 18.5.2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely signing a document as discharge voucher is not sufficient to show that claim has been finally settled, if the insured is making objections to such document.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Insurance claim—Complaint dismissed by District Forum on ground that insured-complainant had accepted the amount as full and final settlement of his claim—Appeal—Truck insured was damaged in accident—Surveyor assessed loss on cash loss basis for Rs. 3,03,000/- —Insurance Company sent cheque for Rs. 2,40,000/- with discharge-voucher which was signed by complainant—Complainant issued notice for Rs. 63,000/- and filed complaint which was resisted on plea that vehicle was got repaired by complainant and second surveyor assessed loss at Rs. 2,40,000/- found payable on cash loss basis and agreed by complainant— Should there be any further survey? No—Whether a printed receipt signed by insured-complainant amounted to document of full and final settlement of claim? No.

       Held: When, surveyor Dinesh Chand inspected the vehicle and had talk with the repairer, Mukesh Kumar of M/s. Tehal Motors Repairing Works and talked with insured, he persuaded them to dismantle the damaged vehicle, firstly the engine and gear box. Then after dismantling, most of the engine parts were found damaged due to severe accidental impact. It was also observed that since most of the parts of engine below the head are damaged, so the insured was rigid for complete engine replacement as demanded in the estimate, whereas the surveyor has considered replacement of half’ engine sufficient, which was available with the dealer. It has also been found agreeable with the insured that the damages on cash loss basis would be recommendable and favourable to everyone including insurance company. This fact shows that earlier surveyor has taken into consideration all material facts and had thoroughly inspected the damages to the vehicle and its engine after dismantling and then has given his final report as above. As the recommendations were of cash loss basis so it was up to the insured to get his vehicle repaired according to his choice and also replacement of parts as per his choice. There was no occasion for appointment of any second surveyor and for getting the vehicle re-inspected in absence of the insured and then to disallow some parts of the claim on the basis of such second survey.

       Therefore, we find that report of the surveyor Dinesh Chand & Co. is extensive, thorough and takes care of every aspect in respect of payment of damages. The insurance company also in none of its correspondence has rejected this report.

       So far as the report of second surveyor Pukhraj Jain is concerned, his single page report is containing only figures and not the facts. In the whole of the report it has nowhere been mentioned which parts have been replaced by used or old parts. It has not been mentioned as to why Mr. Pukhraj Jain surveyor has deducted 25% of the assessment on repairing basis and then why there was necessity of any further deduction. Considering whole report we find that it is not explanatory and so we find that loss was to be paid as per the assessment of surveyor Dinesh Chand & Co. and his recommendation, which was for settlement on cash loss basis. (Paras 10 to 12)

       Now it is well settled that merely signing a document as discharge voucher is not sufficient to show that claim has been finally settled, if the insured is making objections to such document. This Commission earlier also, in the case of Amalndu Rudra v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr., Appeal No.120/05 has held so, after going through many case laws. Similar view was also taken in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bachittar Singh, Appeal No.15/09. (Para 16)

       After having considered all these case laws we again affirm our earlier view and held that mere execution of discharge voucher is not sufficient to deprive a claimant from making claim and if the facts regarding coercion and the acceptance under compulsion etc. have been pleaded then complaint of such insured is maintainable. Thus, we find that in the facts of the present case learned District Forum has committed a mistake in dismissing the complaint solely on this ground.

       Therefore, as aforesaid, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay remaining amount of settlement of claim on cash loss basis, as assessed by the surveyor Dinesh Chand & Co., vide report Annexure OP-2 i.e. Rs.62,250/- (3,02,250- 2,40,000) only. Looking to the facts of the case, we do not pass any order of interest or cost. (Paras 17 & 18)

       Result: Appeal allowed.