ORDER

Dr. (Mrs.) Monika Malik, Member—This is an appeal by the complainant / appellant against the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Seoni (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.63/2015, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by him.

2. Case of the complainant / appellant is such that he is the owner of the Tractor bearing registration no. MP22-AA-1061, which was insured with the opposite party / respondent – Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) for a period w.e.f. 14.02.2011 to 13.02.2012 for an insured declared value of Rs.2,50,000/-. On 08.09.2011 the subject vehicle was stolen regarding which police report was lodged. The Insurance Company was duly intimated regarding the matter. On claim being filed, the Insurance Company paid only Rs.1,87,650/- via online medium and the same was adjusted in the complainant / appellant’s loan account. It is alleged that Rs.62,350/- were left unpaid by the Insurance Company. The complainant / appellant therefore, filed the complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The Insurance Company resisted the complaint and stated that the complainant / appellant had provided information and documents which were sought by the Insurance Company on 14.08.2013 and had also entered into a settlement for payment of Rs.1,87,650/- on stamp paper of Rs.100/-. The undertaking in this regard was presented on 20.08.2013 and therefore, a sum of Rs.1,87,650/- were adjusted in his loan account towards full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant / appellant is therefore not entitled to any further relief.

4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of the delay caused in settlement of claim on part of the Insurance Company within a period of one month, failing which the amount is directed to be paid with interest @ 9% p.a. Additionally compensation of Rs.3,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded.

5. Heard.

6. The appellant in the appeal memo has mentioned that the District Commission has failed to consider that the Insurance Company has not paid the entire amount towards settlement of his claim. Also, the amount which was paid by the Insurance Company, was paid after inordinate delay. It is also stated that the Insurance Company had obtained signatures of the complainant / appellant on the blank paper which was later filled by the Insurance Company. The complainant / appellant had never given consent for settlement of the claim at Rs.1,87,650/- and he deserves entire claim amount. The District Commission has ignored the available evidence while passing the impugned order and the same therefore, deserves to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the complainant / appellant had given consent for full and final settlement of the claim amount at Rs.1,87,650/-. The relevant documents which were required for payment of claim amount was submitted after delay by complainant / appellant, which led to delay in payment of the claim amount. The amount was paid and was adjusted towards the complainant / appellant’s loan account. No deficiency in service has been there on the part of the Insurance Company and the appeal therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

8. We observe that there is a letter of undertaking on stamp paper of Rs.100/- (Exhibit R1) dated 14.08.2013. Said document is signed by the complainant /appellant which shows acceptance of Rs.1,87,650/- towards full and final settlement of the claim amount. The District Commission has rightly observed that after accepting the said amount which was deposited in the loan account, the complainant /appellant had not raised any objection for nearly two years, after which he served a legal notice to the Insurance Company and raised an objection as aforesaid, regarding payment of claim amount