National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Mukesh Saxena on 18 September, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 831 OF 2007 (Against the order dated 23.11.2006 in Appeal No.A-1481 of 2001 of the State Commission, Delhi) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 3rd Floor (Rear Portion), Jeevan Vihar building, Sansad Marg New Delhi- 110 001 Through: The Chief Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Head office, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 110 002 .Petitioner Versus Mr. Mukesh Saxena 16/2, Gali No.3, Krishna Kunj, Extension-I, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi- 110 032 .........Respondent BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Uzma Ashraf, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Khaware, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 18.09.2012 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER The matter in this revision petition filed by the OP/Oriental Insurance Company, lies in a very narrow compass. It arose out of a claim of the Complainant/Mukesh Saxena under a Personal Accident Policy taken from the OP. A perusal of the complaint petition will show that the OP settled the claim for an amount of Rs.128596/-, which was paid to the Complainant through a cheque of 31.12.1997. According to the Complainant, his claim should have been settled for Rs.159223/-. Therefore in the complaint before the District Forum, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:-
a) Direction to Respondent to pay to complainant Rs.30,627 the balance due amount as on 2.9.1995 with 18% interest.
b) Direction to Respondent to pay 18% interest on Rs.1,28,596 since 2.9.1995 till 31.12.1997 the date when cheque was reissued and also suitable compensation.
c) Any other and further reliefs as this Honble Forum may deem fit and desirable in the interest of Justice and circumstances of the case.
2. The District Forum examined in detail the allegation of the Complainant that the amount had been arbitrarily reduced from his claim. He was first sent a cheque of Rs.128596/- dated 14.10.1996. He made several representations against arbitrary reduction whereupon the insurance company took the cheque back. He was told that his case was being reconsidered.
One year later, he was made to receive the same amount by another cheque dated 31.12.1997.
3. The District Forum allowed the claim of the Complainant observing that:-
A perusal of the Discharge Voucher which is enclosed as Annexure R 2 by OP in its reply to the complaint shows that the said voucher is without any date and bears signatures of the complainant. A further perusal shows that this is a type written voucher and is not in handwriting which make stronger the contention of the Complainant that under coercion he was asked to receive the claim amount as sanctioned by the OP which too was delayed by about an year by the OP.
4. The decision of the District Forum has been confirmed by the State Commission and the appeal of Oriental Insurance Company dismissed. The State Commission has also observed that:-
We have taken a view that whenever such settlements are made these are made under coercion and the consumer is left with no choice than to accept the amount which sometimes is even not half of the insured not abridge or incise the legal right nor does it prevent him to seek remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. We have carefully perused the records and heard Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the Oriental Insurance Company and Mr. Rajesh Khawara, Advocate for the respondent, Mukesh Saxena. The counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the decisions of the fora below are not sustainable, as the discharge voucher for the claim had been signed by the Complainant/respondent in full and final settlement of the claim. A perusal of this document shows that it is in the nature of a printed form in which the last sentence reads, I give this discharge receipt to the Company in full and final settlement of my claim.
6. Counsel for the revision petitioner also argued that originally a cheque for the above amount, dated 14.10.1996 was sent to the Complainant. He did not encash it and informed the petitioner through a hand written letter of 2.12.1997 (which was the part of the record before the fora below) that:-
Please find enclosed herewith a cheque No 051839 dt. 14.10.96 Rs.128576/- which has issued by you under the above said Policy. So you are requested to please issued a fresh cheque and cancelled the enclosing cheque.
Accordingly, another cheque dated 31.12.1997 was issued which was accepted by the Complainant before filing the consumer complaint.
7. The case of the revision petitioner is that the payment to the complainant was in full and final settlement of the entire claim. Nothing remains payable thereafter. It is also urged in the revision petition that there is no material on record to show that the Complainant was coerced into signing the discharge voucher. We do not agree. In our view, the conclusions reached by the fora below are based on supporting material on record.
8. As observed by the District Forum, the discharge voucher does not carry any date.
It also does not carry the details of the cheque through which the amount of Rs.128576/- (apparently, after deducting Rs.20/- for the revenue stamp) was eventually paid to the Complainant. Absence of these details, needs to be viewed as an attempt to hide the period of over one year taken by the revision petitioner in getting the amount accepted by the Complainant without protest. Had the quantum of settlement offered been acceptable to him, he would not have waited from 14.10.1996 till 31.12.1997. While there is no attempt by the revision petitioner to explain this long time gap, the explanation can be found in the following paras of the complaint itself
7. That the Complainant made various representations on 2.1.1997, 12.2.1997, 8.4.1997, 8.5.1997, 29.7.1997, 21.10.1997 and 19.11.1997 with Insurance Company explaining that deduction of amount was arbitrary and without any basis.
That the Insurance Company took back the cheque and told that his case was being reconsidered for enhancement of the claim amount.
8. That after one year and that too under coercion Complainant was again asked to receive the same amount of Rs.1,28,596/- vide a cheque dated 31.12.1997 drawn on the Indian overseas Bank which complainant accepted under protest.
9. We therefore, hold that the revision petitioner has failed to make out any case against the impugned order. We also hold that the conclusions reached by the fora below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed for want of merit. Parties to bear their own costs.
.Sd/-
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-.
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-