National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Company Limited vs M/S L.B. Patil & Bros. & Anr. on 24 September, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2339 OF 2012 (From the order dated 5.3.2012 in Appeal No.216/2011 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore) New India Assurance Company Limited Petitioner Regional Office 1 Jeevan Bharati, 124 Connaught Circus New Delhi - 110001 Versus 1. M/s L.B. Patil & Bros. . .. Respondents Cotton Merchants, APMC Ranebennur-581115 District Haveri, Represented by its Managing Partner Linganagouda Basanagouda Patil Karnataka 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Unit 602508, Ist Floor, Pune Bangalore Road Near Bus Stand, Haveri 581110 Karnataka BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate For the Respondent-1 : Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Advocate For the Respondent-2 : Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Advocate Dated : 24th September, 2013 ORDER
JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 05.03.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner / OP against the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint of OPNo.1 in following terms:
The complaint is allowed.
OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.19,00,000/- ( Nineteen Lakh) to complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. OP No.1 should also pay compensation at Rs.10,000/- ( Ten Thousand) and cost of this complaint at Rs.5000/- to the complainant.
The complaint against OP No.2 is hereby dismissed. No cost.
2. One of the plea raised on behalf of petitioner / OP No.1 before the fora below was that the complaint itself was not maintainable because the respondent no.1 had settled the claim by receiving a sum of Rs.38,98,903/- in full and final settlement of the claim.
Though both the fora below came to the conclusion that respondent / complainant had actually received a sum of Rs.38,98,903/- from OP No.1 and executed the settlement voucher in full and final discharge of claim, they rejected the plea of the petitioner / OP No.1 on the premise that full and final settlement voucher was executed by the complainant / respondent no.1 under duress because of financial constraints.
3. Shri Salil Paul, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the orders of the fora below are not sustainable as those are based on incorrect appreciation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC) and the facts of the case. Learned counsel submitted that the fora below have failed to appreciate that there was no coercion or undue pressure on the complainant / respondent no. 1and he voluntarily settled his claim by receiving the above noted sum and full and final discharge of his insurance claim. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through relevant documentary evidence on record.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He has contended that fora below have rightly appreciated the facts and concluded that the discharge voucher was signed by respondent no.1 under duress because of financial crisis. Expanding on the argument, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has stated that claim of respondent no.1 was for Rs.1,10,000/-.
Therefore, it is unimaginable that he would have accepted a sum of Rs.38,98,903/- in full and final settlement against the said claim unless there was some pressure on the respondent.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Execution of the full and final settlement voucher as also the receipt of sum of Rs.38,98,903/- is not denied by respondent no.1. Thus only question for determination is whether the settlement voucher was signed by the complainant / respondent voluntarily or due to coercion and duress.
In order to find answer to this question, it is necessary to have a look on relevant dates and documents.
6. As per the allegations in the complaint, fire accident resulting in loss of goods took place on 05.01.2008 at about 3.30 p.m. Perusal of the copy of the surveyor report of M/s Srivatsan Surveyors Private Limited reveals that surveyor visited the premises of the respondent on 11.01.2008 and subsequent dates and the Surveyor Report was prepared on 12.05.2008, assessing the net loss payable by the petitioner / insurance company to the respondent / complainant at Rs.38,98,903/-. Petitioner has placed on record true copy of letter of respondent no.1 dated 13.03.2008 addressed to the Divisional Manager of petitioner / company alongwith its translated copy, which reads thus:
Sir, With reference to the fire damage loss to the stock of cotton, I wish to inform you that today I have explained in detail about the loss. Again your surveyor after calculating has also explained in detail. Further on the date of fire, after taking into account all the stock, your surveyor has assessed the insurance claim as Rs.39,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- approximately ( Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs to Forty Lakhs ) and has informed me accordingly. As there is financial difficulty, I am agreeing voluntarily for the said compensation. I am agreeable to accept the above amount subject to the condition that this amount is exclusive of Rs.25000/-, which I am getting from other Insurance Company and without deduction of salvage amount.
7. On reading of the above, it is clear that complainant himself offered to accept the amount of loss assessed by the surveyor on the basis of stock position in settlement of his insurance claim. No doubt respondent / complainant in its letter has written that because of financial difficulty he was voluntarily agreeable to accept the aforesaid amount as compensation but in my view, this cannot be taken as a circumstance to conclude that the respondent / complainant was subjected to coercion or undue pressure for settling his claim. Further, we may note that petitioner has placed on record photocopy of fire claim form submitted by the respondent / complainant under the signatures of its partner which indicate that at some stage, the respondent / complainant had filed his claim for Rs.40,00,000/- against which admittedly the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.38,98,903/- as full and final settlement, which as per the survey report is the actual loss suffered by the respondent / complainant due to fire accident.
8. The cumulative effect of above noted circumstances clearly is that this is a case of voluntarily settlement of insurance claim on the part of the complainant / respondent. This conclusion is further fortified by the fact that fire accident took place on 05.01.2008.
The surveyor visited the premises of the petitioner on 11.01.2008 and submitted his final report on 23.10.2008 i.e. within ten months of the date of loss which rules out possibility of any pressure or coercion having been exercised by the petitioner on the respondent to settle the matter. Not only this, the complaint was filed by the complainant sometimes in June 2010 i.e. after a lapse of more than 1 years from the date of signing of settlement voucher.
Had this been a case of coercion, the complainant / respondent was expected to take immediate steps for filing a consumer complaint which is not the case. Therefore also, we find it difficult to hold that the settlement voucher was not voluntary.
9. In view of the discussion above, I am of the opinion that both the fora below have failed to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective and they committed a grave error in holding that complainant / respondent has signed the settlement voucher under duress or pressure. Thus, the impugned orders suffers from material irregularity and cannot be sustained. Revision petition is, therefore accepted and orders of the fora below are set aside and complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
....
(AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Am