An insurance company cannot claim 'full and final settlement' without providing cogent evidence of the insured's consent, and additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC cannot be admitted merely to fill lacunae in the case.

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MADHYA PRADESH

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/19/1038

NATIONAL INSU.CO.LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - 71 SEWANI TOWERS, M.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

RAFIQ KHAN

PRESENT ADDRESS - C/O BOMBAY TRANSPORT 34, MECHANIC NAGAR, INDORE. POSTAL

ADD. NR. JAMA MASJID, WARE HOUSE ROAD, WARD NO.21, DIST. SHAJAPUR,MADHYA

PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT

HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

NATIONAL INSU.CO.LTD.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

RAFIQ KHAN

DATED: 05/03/2026

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1038 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 21.02.2019 passed in C.C.No. 15/2017 by District Commission, Shajapur)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

71, SEWANI TOWERS, M.P.NAGAR,

BHOPAL (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

RAFIQ KHAN S/O RAJJAK KHAN,

C/O BOMBAY TRANSPORT,

34, MECHANIC NAGAR, INDORE

POSTAL ADDRESS-NEAR JAMA MASJID,

WARE HOUSE ROAD, WARD NO.21,

DISTRICT-SHAJAPUR (M.P.) ... RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Sambhavna Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

(Passed On 05.03.2026)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

The opposite party/appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short

‘insurance company’) has filed this appeal against the order dated 21.02.2019

passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shajapur (for

short ‘District Commission) in C.C. No. 15/2017 whereby the complaint filed by the

complainant/respondent has been partly allowed.

-2-

2. Facts of the case in short as narrated by the complainant/respondent

are that the truck owned by the complainant bearing registration number MP-09 HG-

5426 was insured with the opposite party/appellant-insurance company for the

period w.e.f. 30.10.2014 to 29.10.2015. On 28.12.2014 the truck met with an

accident and go damaged completely. It is submitted by the complainant that as per

instructions of the insurance company he sold the subject vehicle as salvage for

Rs.6,25,000/- and thereafter the opposite party-insurance company without his

consent deposited Rs.5,00,828/- in his bank account and therefore towards

compensation he received only Rs.11,25,828/- whereas the subject vehicle was

having IDV Rs.14,00,000/-. It is submitted by the complainant that on making

demand of rest amount of Rs.2,74,172/- the opposite party-insurance company gave

assurance and avoid to pay rest amount by one way or the other. The complainant

suffered loss of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in

service on part of the insurance company filed a complaint before the District

Commission seeking relief of Rs.3,74,172/- with costs.

3. The opposite party-insurance company in its reply before the District

Commission admitted the fact of issuance of policy and has submitted that the

complainant has given written consent for Rs.5,00,828/-

-3-

towards full and final settlement of his claim and executed discharge voucher. Thus

the complainant do not raise any objection in receiving Rs.5,00,828/- as final

settlement of claim. The complainant has filed the complaint after 20 months. The

complainant is not entitled to get any relief. It was thus prayed that the complaint be

dismissed.

4. The District Commission partly a