Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and K.S. Chaudhari, Member
YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA (DR.) - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 4108 of 2010 along with I.A. No. 01 of 2010 (For Condonation of Delay) I.A. No. 2 of 2010 (For Exemption) from Order dated 7.5.2010 in Appeal No. 1271 of 2004 of State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula
Decided on : 12-02-2013
Mr. R.K. Sharma and Mr. Yogesh Chhabra, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. S.K. Ray, Advocate, for the Respondent
The acceptance of a settlement amount without protest, in the absence of coercion or fraud, may terminate the consumer-service provider relationship under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Consumer Dispute - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14, Contract Act - Section 8
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was insured with the respondent for a specific period. After an accident, the petitioner sought the balance amount of the insurance claim, alleging that the respondent wrongly retained the amount. The District Forum allowed the complaint, but the State Commission set aside the order, leading to the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner accepted the settlement amount without protest, and there was no evidence of coercion or fraud. The court held that the Consumer Protection Act is not meant for the enrichment of the consumer, and once the petitioner accepted the amount unconditionally, the consumer-service provider relationship ended.
Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance of the settlement amount, the alleged coercion or fraud, and the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Contract Act, particularly Section 14 and Section 8, to determine the rights and obligations of the parties involved.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition on the grounds of lack of merit and being barred by limitation, imposing a cost on the petitioner.
ORDER
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member - Present revision petition has been filed against order dated 7.5.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short, 'state Commission'). Along with it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 36 days has been filed, though as per Office noting there is delay of 50 days in filing the petition.
2. Admitted facts are that petitioner/complainant got insured his Maruti Car with respondent/opposite party for the period from 8.2.1997 to 7.2.1998 for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000. During the period of Insurance, petitioner's vehicle met with an accident near Pehowa on 8.5.1997. FIR was lodged with the Police. Necessary intimation was given to the respondent, upon which Sh. F.C. Jain, surveyor was appointed who conducted the spot survey of the vehicle in question on 12.5.1997 and submitted his report to the respondent on 19.5.1997. Thereafter, vehicle in question was again surveyed by M/s. Esquire Technocreate, Mohali who also submitted his report in June, 1997. Thereafter, claim of petitioner was settled at Rs. 2,08,000 as full and final settlement and petitioner gave his consent on 10.12.2007, provided that a cheque of this amount be given to him within 30 days. Thereafter, on 31.3.1998 petitioner made a request to the respondent to pay the amount of claim to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000. However, respondent did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner. By filing complaint before the District Forum, petitioner sought direction to the respondent to pay him a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 on account of loss of car along with interest and other charges, etc. on the ground that respondent had wrongly retained the aforesaid amount which it was bound to pay within 30 days from the date of the consent.
3. On the other hand, plea taken by the respondent was that petitioner had agreed for full and final settlement against total loss for a sum of Rs. 2,08,000 subject to verification of the driving licence. After verification of the same by Shri K.R. Arora, investigator, respondent recommended the claim for Rs. 2,08,000 on 18.2.1998 subject to deposit of the salvage and transfer of registration in respondent's name. The registration was transferred on 9.3.1998 and salvage was deposited on 26.3.1998. Thereafter, respondent issued the cheque of the said amount to the petitioner which was accepted by him in full and final settlement, without any protest on 3.6.1998. Denying any kind of deficiency in service it was prayed that complaint merit dismissal.
4. District Forum, vide its order dated 31.3.2004, allowed the complaint of petitioner and directed the respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs. 17,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 1.9.1997, till realization and further directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the sum of Rs. 2,08,000 from 1.9.1997 to 3.6.1998. In addition, it awarded Rs. 2,000 as litigation expenses.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, respondent filed appeal before the State Commission, which set aside the order of District Forum.
6. Hence, this revision petition.
7. Respondent has filed reply to this revision also.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
9. As far as application for condonation of delay is concerned, no cogent reason at all has been mentioned as apparent from the relevant averments which states:
"3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has left his address in the month of May, 2010 and after Hon'ble Commission reserved the order and after that a family known to him is staying at the above noted address and the petitioner has shifted to a new better accommodation at 1272, Urban Estate, Jind, Haryana which is at a distance from Housing Board Colony and on his visit to his previous address on 15.7.2010, the petitioner came to know of passing such an order and therefore there is delay of about 36 days in filing the present revision petition from the date of knowledge of
