Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 7243
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, CJ, DR.(MRS) MONIKA MALIK, J
KULBHUSHAN JAIN – Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent
First Appeal No.829 of 2023 | Case No.438/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Neelesh Khare
For the Respondents: Shri M.Bhatnagar
Consent to settlement effectively bars further claims, highlighting the necessity of clear rebuttal against documented agreements.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 21 - Dismissal of complaint regarding insurance claim - The complainant's vehicle was insured but the claim was not paid despite the surveyor's assessment of the damage - Appellant argued inadequate opportunity to challenge submissions - The commission found no merit in the arguments as consent for settlement was not rebutted. (Paras 5-10)
(B) Consent and Finality - The acceptance of the claim amount was supported by documentation and lack of rebuttal from the complainant - The impugned order upheld as lawful and without error. (Paras 7-9)
Facts of the case:
The complainant's vehicle insured for IDV of Rs.24,26,806/- was involved in an accident, leading to a claim assessed at Rs.21,88,000/- but allegedly disputed by the insurer citing previous lower valuation.
Findings of Court:
The commission upheld the dismissal of the complaint citing lack of credible evidence from the complainant.
Issues: Whether the consent letter constituted a final resolution of the claim, and whether the complainant was denied a fair opportunity.
Ratio Decidendi: The commission ruled that consent for the accepted amount precludes further claims, reinforcing the binding nature of such agreements in insurance disputes.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :
This is an appeal by the complainant / appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) directed against the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Morena (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.438/2022, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.
2. Briefly stated, fact of the case are that the complainant is the owner of car bearing registration no.MP07- CB-6105 which was insured with the opposite parties / respondents – New India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) w.e.f. 06.11.2020 to 05.11.2021 for Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.24,26,806/-. It is alleged that the subject vehicle met with an accident on 13.09.2021. The Insurance Company was duly intimated and surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who assessed claim amount on ‘total loss’ basis as Rs.21,88,000/-. It is alleged that despite that the Insurance Company did not pay the claim amount. He therefore, approached the District Commission, seeking relief.
3. The Insurance Company resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant had obtained the subject insurance policy online from the Insurance Company stating its IDV as Rs.24,26,806/-, whereas the fact is that the complainant had earlier obtained insurance policy from National Insurance Company Limited for IDV of Rs.14,70,000/-. Clarification was sought from the complainant as to how he obtained the current insurance policy on the basis of enhanced IDV. No explanation was provided by the complainant. It is also submitted that Rs.13,52,158/- have been agreed and accepted as the claim amount and the same has already been paid to the complainant on 01.11.2022. Therefore, since the complainant has obtained the amount towards full and final satisfaction, no further amount is payable. Hence, prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.
4. Heard. Perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was not provided with adequate opportunity to file counter affidavit before the District Commission in order to challenge the submissions of the Insurance Company. There was no reason before the complainant to settle the claim for full and final satisfaction by accepting the nominal amount of Rs.13,52,158/-, when the surveyor had assessed the loss on total loss basis to the tune of Rs.21,88,000/-. The IDV of the subject vehicle was Rs.24,26,806/- and therefore, it has wrongly been held by the District Commission that the complainant had obtained the claim amount as aforesaid, after full and final satisfaction . He therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3027 and Civil Appeal no.3893/2013, Karnavati Venners Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. , decided on 09.02.2023 in support of his arguments.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand, supported the impugned order and argued that the documents filed by the Insurance Company clearly shows that consent was given by the complainant towards acceptance of Rs.13,52,158/- and the said amount was also released in favour of the complainant on 01.11.2022. This fact remains unrebutted before the District Commission. Also, while challenging this, the complainant has not produced any credible evidence, while filing this appeal. He also argued that the current insurance policy was obtained by the complainant / appellant for enhanced IDV since earlier insurance policy was for IDV of Rs.14,70,000/- and he was not entitled to No Claim Bonus also which was availed by him. The complainant / appellant could not offer any explanation regarding that also. He therefore, prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In support of
