State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman, United India Insurance ... vs Sh. Amar Nath Gupta And Others on 12 June, 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRA DUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 307 / 2004 The Chairman, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another ......Appellants Versus Sh. Amar Nath Gupta and Others .....Respondents Sh. L.D. Bhatia, Learned Counsel for the Appellants None for the Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Surendra Kumar, Member Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member Dated: 12.06.2007 ORDER
(Per:
Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is insurer's appeal against the order dated 31.05.2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar allowing the consumer complaint No. 25 / 2000 and directing the insurer to pay compensation of Rs. 31,500/- with interest @15% p.a. w.e.f. 01.09.1999 till payment in addition to Rs. 3,000/- towards damages for mental agony and suffering and sum of Rs. 1,500/- as cost.
2. Complaint was filed by Sh. Amar Nath Gupta, who died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives, respondent No. 1/1 Smt. Rajrani Gupta (widow) and respondent No. 1/2 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta (son) were substituted. Complainant - insured had purchased householders' insurance policy covering risk from fire and allied perils, burglary, house breaking, all risks, baggage insurance and personal accident for the period 06.03.1997 to 05.03.1998. On 06.01.1998, during day time, dacoity was committed in the house of the insured. Surveyor Sh. Deepak Gupta was appointed, who submitted report dated 16.01.1999 and assessed net loss of Rs. 1,16,233/- subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurer allowed the claim of Rs. 84,233/- and intimated the insured vide letter dated 17.08.1999 (Paper No. 22) about the decision and called upon the insured to execute the discharge voucher in acceptance of the claim sanctioned so that the cheque may be issued for the said amount.
3. Record reveal that the insured sent duly signed discharge voucher in acknowledgement of receipt of sum of Rs. 84,233/- in full and final discharge of the claim (Paper No. 23) and cheque of the said amount (Paper No. 24) was issued in favour of the insured. Having accepted the said amount, the insured agitated the matter alleging that the discharge voucher had been signed by him and the cheque of Rs. 84,233/- had been received considering the delaying tactics adopted by the insurer from the very beginning and resort to coercive bargaining in regard to the claim made by him. The insured, therefore, vide his letter dated 28.09.1999 (Paper No. 25) asked the insurer to settle his claim to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- and to send the cheque for balance amount together with interest @18%. The insurer acknowledged receipt of the said letter on 12.10.1999 (Paper No. 26) and refuted the further claim made by the insured. The insured thereafter filed consumer complaint on 27.01.2000 claiming the balance amount of Rs. 95,767/- with interest apart from the interest on the amount paid with delay and damages for mental agony and suffering and expenses of litigation. In the complaint, it was alleged that the amount of Rs. 84,233/- had been accepted as non-acceptance of this short payment could have further delayed the total payment and the complainant being a heart patient was in urgent need of money and, therefore, had no option but to accept the said amount towards his claim under the policy of insurance.
4. The defence taken by the insurer was that the amount was accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement of his claim without any undue influence, fear and favour and with his free will; that alleged loss of Rs. 31,500/- could not be allowed as the complainant could not substantiate the same and his ownership over such items inspite of several letters, reminders and demands of the purchase bill etc. for such items and that the claim for further amount was based on after thought allegations.
5. The District Forum on an appreciation of the evidence in the case rejected the contention of the insurer by coming to the conclusion that the surveyor of the insurer has assessed the loss also in relation to three items, namely, VCR, Dek (Sony) and Video Camera to the tune of Rs. 31,500/- keeping in view that the bills and cash memos of these articles were not produced by the insured and also the terms and conditions of the policy and that in the totality of the circumstances of the case, it was evident that the insured signed the discharge voucher under great duress as non-acceptance of the amount would have further delayed the payment of compensation while he was in need of money on account of heart disease and, as such, the discharge voucher was executed on account of coercive bargaining. With these observations, the consumer complaint was partly allowed as stated above.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the appellant persuasively argued that the complainant - insured having accepted the payment of Rs. 84,233/- towards full and final discharge of his claim and having signed and executed the discharge voucher dated 30.08.1999, the District Forum fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the discharge voucher was executed by way of coercive bargaining and under duress by the complainant. According to the learned counsel, the final settlement of the claim was duly accepted by the complainant without any undue influence, fear and favour and that the inconsistent stand taken by the complainant warranted dismissal of his complaint. Having carefully considered the material on record and the attending circumstances of the case, we see merit in the submission of the learned counsel and we are of the view that the District Forum fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the discharge voucher in full and final payment of the claim was executed under duress and by way of coercive bargaining.
7. The reasons are that it is well settled that if insured has accepted any amount as full and final payment of his claim, he has got no case to make further claim. The exception provided is only when the payment has been made and received under undue influence, coercion, fraud or misrepresentation. In the letter dated 28.09.1999 (Paper No. 25), complainant urged that considering the delaying tactics adopted by the insurer from the very beginning and resort to coercive bargaining, he had no choice but to accept the cheque for Rs. 84,233/- only after signing the acceptance voucher. Surveyor's report indicate that complainant had retired from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited as General Manager and was now handling the day-to-day working of his son's factory in Haridwar. There can be no doubt that the complainant was very well established in life and apparently had no financial hardship. A man of his status could hardly be put to coercive bargaining in the matter of settlement of insurance claim. It is of significance that contrary to the allegation of the letter dated 28.09.1999, the complainant alleged in his complaint that he being a heart patient, was in urgent need of money and there being no option left, had to accept the payment made by the insurer against his claim. No such document was brought on record to indicate that on account of disease of heart, the complainant was under great duress and was thus put to undue influence and coerced to accept the amount of Rs. 84,233/- towards full and final discharge of his claim under the policy of insurance. The District Forum did not take into account the contradictory stand taken by the complainant and also the absence of any credible evidence of heart disease, which may have compelled the complainant to accept the compensation of Rs. 84,233/- under duress and, as such, the District Forum clearly fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the discharge voucher was executed by the complainant under duress. We are convinced that it was not a case of discharge voucher having been obtained under undue influence, misrepresentation or coercive bargaining and, as such, repudiation of further claim by the insurer could not have been taken to be a deficiency in service entitling the complainant to further compensation under the policy of insurance. Therefore, the impugned order, being based on erroneous view of the law and fact, cannot legally be maintained.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal succeed and is to be allowed accordingly.
9. Appeal is allowed. Order dated 31.05.2001 of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(MS.
LUXMI SINGH) (SURENDRA KUMAR) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)