SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(HP) 1300

HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana (R), President., Vijay Pal Khachi, Member, Sunita Sharma, Member.
Dharam Singh - Appellant
Versus
Shree Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 158 of 2018
Decided On : 05-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vijay Bhatia Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate, for the Respondent No.1; Mr. Rahul Thakur Advocate vice Mr. Ashwani Kaundal Advocate, for the Respondent No.2

The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of estoppel in consumer protection cases, particularly in relation to voluntarily accepting settlement amounts.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 12, 15 - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, particularly Section 12 and 15, and their application in the case. The court highlighted the requirement for establishing deficiency in service and the principles of natural justice in passing orders under the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant filed a consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, claiming that the opposite parties caused financial loss and did not provide proper service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, leading to the appeal before the State Commission.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant received a settlement amount from the Insurance Company, which led to the estoppel from agitating the matter against the Insurance Company subsequently. The court also noted the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement and an award passed by an arbitrator against the complainant.

Issues: The issues included the liability of the appellant's appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, the settlement received from the Insurance Company, and the award passed by the arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was estopped from agitating the matter against the Insurance Company after voluntarily receiving the settlement amount. Additionally, the court found it not expedient to interfere in the order of the District Forum based on the award passed by the arbitrator.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the District Forum, and the parties were left to bear their own litigation costs before the State Commission.

JUDGMENT

P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 26.04.2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.53/2013 titled Dharam Singh v. Shree Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.

Brief facts of Consumer Complaint:

2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is registered owner of Truck No. HP-12-8753. It is pleaded that vehicle in question was financed by opposite party No.2 vide agreement dated 31.01.2011 for loan amount of Rs. 342000/- (Three lac forty two thousand). It is further pleaded that vehicle in question met with accident on dated 05.11.2011 near Police Chowki Kalama District Ropar Punjab and vehicle of complainant was totally damaged in the accident. It is further pleaded that complainant engaged crane and took the vehicle from the place of accident to M/s. Sonu Enterprises Body Builders Bilaspur H.P. It is further pleaded that complainant requested the Insurance Company to make the payment to the complainant. It is further pleaded that Insurance Company did not pay the amount and thereafter complainant sold the damaged vehicle to junk dealer on dated 02.05.2012 at Mandi H.P. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant deposited amount of Rs. 130000/- (One lac thirty thousand) to opposite party No.2 on dated 03.05.2012 vide receipt No.AD 4835861 and same was deducted from total loan amount of complainant. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant submitted application before opposite party No.2 on dated 11.01.2012 for not insuring the vehicle. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 insured the vehicle w.e.f. 14.02.2012 to 13.02.2013 and charged Rs. 16773/- (Sixteen thousand seven hundred seventy three) from the complainant. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant again requested opposite party No.2 for the settlement of loan amount but opposite party No.2 did not settle the loan amount. It is further pleaded that there was balance loan amount of Rs. 60096/- (Sixty thousand ninety six) but Financer demanded amount of Rs. 126000/-(One lac twenty six thousand) from the complainant and committed deficiency in service. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.

3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. It is pleaded that after getting the information regarding accident opposite party No.1 deputed Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor. It is further pleaded that Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 10280/- (Ten thousand two hundred eighty) on repair basis which is already paid by opposite party No.1 as full and final settlement to the complainant. It is further pleaded that Shri Ram General Insurance Company and Shri Ram Transport Finance Company are two different entities and they have nothing to do with each other. It is further pleaded that District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.1. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.1 sought.

4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act, conduct, omission and commission. It is further pleaded that complainant is liable to pay amount of Rs. 517506.55 (Five lac seventeen thousand five hundred six rupees and fifty five paise) as loan amount and complainant is defaulter. It is further pleaded that terms and conditions of the agreement are binding upon complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer compl

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top