NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MOHINDERPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Insurance Company - New India Assurance Company Limited, challenging the order of the District Forum, Patiala dated March 25, 1996 whereby a direction was given to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 to Mohinderpal-complainant, in lump-sum which would include the balance amount of Rs. 7,263.00 of the Surveyor's report plus interest on delayed payment and costs and compensation. Mohinderpal complainant obtained Insurance policy on Dec. 1, 1992 (R/3) covering risk in respect of his residential house situated in Naya Bans, Raghomajra, Patiala The house was constructed after taking loan from S.B.I and qua the loan the lien of the bank was protected. On account of floods in the month of July, 1993 the house was damaged and the claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. Mr.G.S. Grewal was appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss. He submitted his report on Nov. 17, 1993 assessing loss to the tune of Rs. 18,120.00. The amount was not acceptable to the complainant and he protested. Shri Hari Chand was appointed as Surveyor by the Insurance Company who assessed the loss at Rs. 22,463.00. Since the amount as assessed was not paid, the complainant lodged the complaint on march, 1,1994 with the Consumer Forum, Patiala, then headed by District Judge. Subsequently on re-constitution of the Forum, notice of the complaint was issued to the Insurance Company and reply was filed contesting the claim. It was asserted that the complainant had accepted a sum of Rs. 15,250.00 on 28.7.1994 in full and final settlement of his claim and thus he was estopped from claiming more amount. Both the parties produced affidavits and documents in support of their allegations. Written statement, as stated, were also produced on the basis of which the impugned order was passed.

(2.) Shri Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for the Insurance Company has argued that after acceptance of sum of Rs. 15,250.00 vide receipt Annexure R/1, the complainant was not entitled to any more amount. This contention in the facts of the present case cannot be accepted. Vide annexure R/5, Shri G.S. Grewal assessed the loss at Rs. 18,120.00. Mohinderpal-complainant was not satisfied as briefly stated above and on his representation Shri Hari Chand was appointed as Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 22,463.00. His report is at Annexure R/5. This report is dated March 31, 1994. It may be observed that Surveyor's report actually was after institution of the complaint. A letter was written by the Insurance Company along with cheque of Rs. 15,250.00 for acceptance by the complainant, Annexure C-II which is dated 6.7.1994. Mohindcrpal-complainant did not accept the same and returned the same vide letter dated 12.7.1994 (C-4) clearly indicating that a sum of Rs. 15,250.00 the amount of the cheque was not acceptable to him. It was on 28.7.1994 that he is alleged to have received a cheque for Rs. 15,250.00 vide annexure R/1 but on the same date, he sent a telegram lodging the protest. It is in the sequence of these facts that it is to be seen whether acceptance of Rs. 15,250.00 was voluntary or not more so when this happened after he had filed the complaint and the Consumer Forum was not actually functioning. In our opinion such acceptance cannot be treated as voluntary acceptance or full and final settlement of the claim.

(3.) For about one year, the Insurance Company was unable to settle the claim. Rather second surveyor report came after the complaint had been filed. Thus on the ground of delay settlement of claim, there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Insurance Company.