Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI
N.A. BRITTO, VIDHYA R. GURAV, JJ.
Sudhakar Arjun Parab – Appellant
Versus
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and Others – Respondents
F.A. No. 09 of 2014
Decided On : 17-06-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A.D. Bhobe.
For the Respondent: Ms. S. Gad.
The acceptance of a settlement on a cash loss basis, evidenced by a duly signed document, precludes subsequent claims of being misled or cheated by the insurer.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Dismissal of Complaint - Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 64VB, Section 64UM, Section 64UM(2) - Section 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938 - The court discussed the settlement of the insurance claim under Section 64UM(2) and the necessity of the indemnity cum declaration as a document evidencing the settlement on cash loss basis. The court also highlighted the acceptance of the settlement by the complainant and the implications of such acceptance.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant obtained a loan and purchased a car, which met with an accident during the insurance policy's validity. The complainant claimed that the insurer and dealer misguided him and filed a complaint seeking repair of the vehicle, cost of repairs, and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant had accepted the settlement on a cash loss basis with salvage, and therefore dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no merit in it.
Issues: Misguidance by insurer and dealer, acceptance of settlement, necessity of indemnity cum declaration, and the complainant's understanding of the settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant's acceptance of the settlement on cash loss basis with salvage, evidenced by the indemnity cum declaration, precluded the claim of being misled by the insurer and dealer.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
ORDER :
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 7.10.2013 of the North Goa District Forum at Porvorim by which the complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant has been dismissed.
2. The admitted facts are as follows.
3. The complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 6.7 lacs from OP No. 4 ICICI Bank Ltd., and purchased on 19.9.2007 a Hyundai Verna Model car from its authorized dealer, namely, OP No. 3 Alcon Hyundai Counto Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 7,60,547/- and registered it under No. GA-04-C-0457 and insured it under a comprehensive policy with OP No. 2 for the period from 19.9.2007 to 18/09/08 declaring its value as Rs. 7,22,520/-.
4. The complainant’s car met with an accident on 16.7.2008, during the validity of the said insurance policy and the complainant reported about the said accident to all the OPs and took the vehicle to OP No. 3 on 18.7.2008, and, at the request of OP No. 2, the insurer, the complainant obtained an estimate dated 20.7.2008 and again another estimate on 25.8.2008. The complainant then signed an indemnity cum declaration on 8.9.2008 in favour of the OP No. 2, the insurer, agreeing to a cash loss settlement for Rs. 2,45,000/-, with salvage being taken by the insured under their consent. The amount of Rs. 2,45,000/- was credited by the insurer, OP No. 2, to the loan account of the complainant with OP No. 4 ICICI Bank Ltd., on 20/01/09 (before filing of the complaint).
5. Claiming that as per estimate submitted by OP No. 3 repair charges were quantified at Rs. 7 lacs, and further claiming that OP No. 1 & 2 totally misguided the complainant by saying that the first cheque of Rs. 2,45,000/- was granted towards insurance claim with promise to get help in getting the vehicle repaired, and further claiming that the complainant came to know by letter dated 12.2.2009 sent by OP No. 3, that the vehicle was beyond repair, the claimant filed the complaint on 18.6.2009, inter alia, praying for a direction to OP No. 3 to repair the said vehicle and make it roadworthy and for a direction to OP Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the cost of repairs and also for compensation of Rs. 5 lacs.
6. The complaint proceeded ex parte against OP Nos. 1 & 2, the insurer by order dated 18.4.2012, as can be seen from para 2 of the impugned order dated 7.10.2013, and, an application filed on behalf of OP Nos. 1 & 2 to set aside the said ex parte order came to be dismissed by order dated 24.9.2012. The complaint was contested by OP Nos. 3 and 4. The Lr. District Forum has observed, and, in our view rightly, that the dispute is essentially between the complainant policy holder and the Insurer, OP Nos. 1 and 2.
7. Notice of this appeal was issued only to Respondent No. 2 from whom the complainant had obtained the insurance policy.
8. We have heard Shri Bhobe, the Lr. advocate of the complainant and Ms. S. Gad, the lr. advocate on behalf of the OP Nos. 1 & 2, the insurer. At our request and for our satisfaction, OP No. 2, the insurer, was directed to produce the licenced surveyors’ report and the same was produced on 26.3.2014. Prior to that, OP No. 2 had produce on 13.3.2014 the said indemnity cum declaration dated 8.9.2008 alongwith a copy of the letter dated 12.2.2009 addressed to the complainant, by OP No. 3.
9. Shri A.D. Bhobe, the Lr. advocate of the complainant would submit that the complainant is an illiterate person who signed the said indemnity cum declaration in Devnagri, without understanding its contents. Shri Bhobe would submit that the complainant was called to the office of OP No. 2 and the said indemnity cum declaration was got signed on a printed form settling the claim for Rs. 2,45,000/- and to make matters worse the said amount was sent to be credited to the loan account of the complainant with OP No. 4 ICICI Bank. Shri Bhobe would submit that the complainant did not know that the claim was settled at Rs. 2.45 lacs till the complainant received the said letter dated 12.2.2009 from OP No. 3. Lr. advocate would submit that as a p
