BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARUSUGDA
CONSUMER DISPUTE CASE NO. 49 OF 2008
Radhey Shyam Sahu (26 Yrs.),
S/o: Subalal Sahu,
At: Kandagarh,Po: Hirma,Ps: Badmal,
Dist;Jharsuguda,Orissa, ……………………..…………………………………………… Complainant.
Versus
Branch Manager,
New India Assurance co. Ltd.,Jharsuguda Branch,
1st Floor,Mishra market complex,
Mangal bazar Road,Jharsuguda,Orissa. …………………………..……………….Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the parties:-
For the complainant Sri S.N.Pasayat, Adv. & Ors.
For the Opp. Parties Sri B.K.Purohit, Adv. & Ors.
Date of Order: 09.12.2009
Present
1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.
2. Smt. B.Mohapatra, Member.
Sri S.L.Behera,President:- The complainant alleges deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.
1. The case of the complainant in brief is that, the complainant is the registered Owner of one Bolero XL 2WD, bearing Regd. No. OR23-8071 and it was duly insured under the O.P vide policy No. 550904/31/06/01/00000056 valid from 05.04.06 to 04.04.07. During the validity of the said policy the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant meet with an accident on dt.21.03.07 at about 4.30 Am at Galbandha Chowk under Barkot P.S in the District of Deogarh. Soon after the accident, the fat of the accident was intimated to the O.P by the complainant and he was advised to repair the said vehicle with an assurance to reimburse all the expenditures incurred for repairing the said vehicle , on the production of all the bills and voucher . The O.P has also appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. Accordingly the loss was assessed by Surveyor and the said vehicle was repaired at Hirakud Motors, Sambalpur and ready on dt.05.12.07.
The complainant submitted all the bills to the O.P amounting to Rs.2,42,678/- (Rupees two lakhs forty two thousand six hundred seventy eight) only, but the O.P refused to settle the claim as such this case is filed with a prayer as mentioned in the petition.
2. On receiving of notice from this Forum, the O.P appeared through his counsel and filed written version, admitting the fact of accident, validity of the insurance policy and forwarding of claim form along with bills.
3. The O.P. pleaded that, the claim of the complainant has already been settled as per the surveyor report. The complainant has received Rs.91,900/- (Rupees Ninety one thousand nine hundred) only in the form of cheque vide No. 372576 dtd.26.05.2008 of Punjab National Bank,Jharsuguda branch in
-2-
respect of his claim and executed discharge voucher on dt.26.05.2008. As such the claim of the complainant is not pending and pray for the dismissal of the case.
4. After going through the pleading of both the parties, the sole question is to be determined this is “ whether this complaint petition is maintainable under consumer Protection Act,” particularly where insurance claim was settled and received by the insured, after executing discharge voucher.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, perused the pleading of both the parties and documents available on record.
There is no any averment in the claim petition of the complainant, that the complainant has executed the discharge voucher under fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation.
Secondly, the complainant has suppressed material fact to effect, that, he has received Rs.91,900/- (Rupees Ninety one thousand nine hundred) only in form of cheque and executed discharge voucher.
Can record goes to reflect that, the complainant has received a cheque vide No. 372576 dt.26.05.08 of Punjab National Bank amounting to Rs.91,900/- (Rupees Ninety one thousand nine hundred) only and executed discharge voucher on dt.26.05.08.
This material fact has been suppressed by the complainant.
It is an observation of Supreme court in a case between National Insurance Co. ltd., Vrs. Nipla Export Pvt. Ltd. Reported in CPR I-2007(1) page-81, that:- “where insurance claim was settled and received by the insured, in the absence of any evidence that discharge voucher and receipt had been obtained from complainant fraudulently or by exercising undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like coercive bargaining, consumer complaint would not lie.”
It is also a settle principle of law that the part should come to the court with a clean hand. If any part suppress material fact there he is not entitle to get justice. In this case the complainant has suppressed the fact of receiving of Rs.91,900/- (Rupees Ninety one thousand nine hundred) only in form of cheque and execution of discharge voucher. As such he is not entitled to get justice.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we come to the conclusion that the complaint petition is not maintainable hence we dismiss it. Accordingly the complaint petition is dismissed without any cost to either parties.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
B.Mohapatra, Lady Member S.L Behera, President.
Dictated and Corrected by me.
S.L.Behera, President.
Tags: New India Assurance