National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pulkit General Store vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 January, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1755 OF 2007 (Against the order dated 22.02.07 in Appeal No. 540/05 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) Pulkit General Store Janta Colony Navalgarh Road Ward No.42, Sikar Through Prop. Virendra Kumar S/o Sh. Chiman Lal R/o Navalgarh Road Janta Colony Sikar ........ Petitioner (s) Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Dy. Manager Regional Office : Narain Singh Circle Jaipur ........ Respondent (s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Rishi Matoliya , Advocate For the Respondent (s) : Ms. Nanita Sharma, Advocate Pronounced on : 13th January 2012 ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER The petitioner in this case is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party. The petitioner is a general store run by its proprietor Virendra Kumar and the same was financed by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur under Pradhan Mantri Rojagar Yojna Scheme through a loan of Rs.70,000/-. With reference to the loan in question, the store was insured for Rs.70,000/- on which premium was paid by the petitioner. Since there was a fire in the store during the policy period, an insurance claim was lodged by the petitioner with the respondent for compensation with reference to the loss suffered by the petitioner in the fire. A surveyor came to be appointed who after investigating the matter assessed the loss and submitted a report to the Insurance Co. After considering the surveyors report and other aspects of the accident, the Insurance Co. passed a claim for Rs.5,561/- and remitted the same to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it was communicated to him that the said amount of Rs.5,561/- is just an interim payment and the remaining amount would be processed and paid further. The petitioner was also asked to sign some papers which, according to the petitioner, were in English and the same were signed by him since it was stated that signing the papers was mandatory to receive the payment. The petitioner submits that he cannot read and write in English and the respondent concealed the fact that the paper on which he was required to sign was in full and final settlement and he was misled and being a poor man he accepted the amount under the assurance of the respondent co. However, when he approached the respondent through its local office for remaining payment of the entire claim, he failed to get a positive response from the respondent. Aggrieved by this behavior of the respondent, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum with a prayer to award him a sum of Rs.59,375/- in his favour as the shop was insured by the respondent.
2. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced and hearing the parties, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.40,439/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the petitioner from the date of filing of the complaint.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, an appeal came to be filed by the respondent before the State Commission challenging the same. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 22.2.2007 allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of the District Forum. The petitioner has challenged this impugned order through the present revision petition.
4. The limited issue which has arisen in the present case is as to whether the petitioner accepted the amount of Rs.5,561/- by way of full and final settlement on 9.9.2004 or not and also whether the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence by the respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner signed the discharge voucher, a copy of which is placed at page 30 of Vol.I. We have perused the discharge voucher which is duly signed by Virendra Kumar on behalf of the petitioner store. It is clearly mentioned that the payment is in full and final settlement and there is no mention that the petitioner is accepting the amount under any protest or subject to any condition. It is the contention of Mr. Rishi Matoliya, Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner did not realize while signing the voucher that it was in full and final settlement of his claim. In response to a query from us, learned counsel submits that though the petitioner objected to the payment but admittedly no letter was written to the Insurance Co. in this regard. He, however, says that a legal notice was served but neither the date thereof is known to the counsel nor a copy thereof has been placed on record. We also find that there is no mention of such a legal notice in the copy of the complaint placed on record. As regards his contention that the petitioner does not know English, it is pointed out by Ms. Nanita Sharma counsel for the respondent that along with discharge voucher, a covering letter was also sent by the respondent to the petitioner and that letter which is also of the same date, i.e., 9.9.2004 is in Hindi. It is clearly stated in the covering letter in Hindi that the enclosed discharge voucher in question is by way of full and final settlement. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he signed the discharge voucher without knowing the contents thereof is an afterthought and cannot be accepted. She submitted that the petitioner having accepted the amount in full and final settlement of his claim cannot be allowed to go back on the discharge voucher signed by him since there is no allegation of fraud or undue influence or misrepresentation on the part of the respondent Co. She has relied on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. [1999 (II) CPJ 10 (SC)] in support of her contention.
5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the documents particularly the discharge voucher at page 30 and the covering letter of even date at page 29 of the paper book (Vol.I), we are convinced that the petitioner accepted the amount of Rs.5,561/- and voluntarily signed the discharge voucher in full and final settlement of his claim. The District Forum committed grave error in accepting the complaint in spite of the discharge voucher in question and hence we uphold the impugned order of the State Commission which is in line with the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills (supra). There is, therefore, no merit in the revision petition. Revision petition accordingly stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
...........................................
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ..........................................
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/