State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company ... vs 1.Krishan Lal Son Of Lala Ram, ... on 27 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.261 & 2808 of 2006 Date of Institution: 03.02.2006/06.12.2006 Date of Decision: 27.03.2012 Appeal No.261 of 2006 United India Insurance Company Limited, LIC Building Rajguru Market, Panipat through Regional Office, SCO No.123-24, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory. Appellant (OP-1) Versus 1. Krishan lal son of Lala Ram, proprietor of Shiv Ganga and Company, Desraj Colony, behind Devi Mandir, Panipat through its Proprietor Krishan Lal. Respondent (Complainant) 2. State Bank of Patiala, Specialized Branch, N.K. Tower Panipat through its Manager. Respondent (OP-2) For the Parties: Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for appellant. Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Appeal No. 2808 of 2006 State Bank of Patiala, Specialized Branch, N.K. Tower Panipat through its Manager. Appellant (OP-2) Versus 1. Krishan lal son of Lala Ram, proprietor of Shiva Ganga and Company, Des Raj Colony, behind Devi Mandir, Panipat. Respondent (Complainant) 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, LIC Building Rajguru Market, Panipat through its Manager. Respondent (OP-1) For the Parties: Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate for appellant. Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
The above mentioned two appeals bearing No.261/2006 and 2808/2006 have arisen out of the order dated 28.12.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panipat in complaint No.03/2004.
The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant Krishan Lal had got insured his factory with the opposite party No.1 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. On 19.02.2003 for building, machinery and material. On 21.03.2003 a fire broke in the unit of the insured premises. Fire Brigade extinguished the fire. Complainant informed the Insurance Company upon which the surveyor and loss assessor of the Insurance Company inspected the premises and submitted his report whereby he assessed the total loss of the complainant to the extent of Rs.53,000/-. The complainant was paid the sum of Rs.11,000/- vide cheque No.859406 dated 26.08.2003 against full and final discharge voucher dated 04.08.2003 along with covering letter dated 26.08.2003 out of total loss assessment at Rs.10,540/- for machinery, Rs.500/- fire fighting charges and applying the excess clause of Rs.10,000/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. The damage of the building of Satish Kumar in possession of the complainant was assessed by the Surveyor at Rs.3173/- and after deducing 9% depreciation and reinstate premium of Rs.243/-, the sum of Rs.2930/- was approved and same was also paid vide cheque No.859407 dated 26.08.2003. However, according to the complainant, he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.4,60,000/-. After receiving the aforesaid amount, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum with the plea that his signature were obtained by the surveyor on the blank papers and thus invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum.
Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein it denied the allegations of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued following direction:-
.the present complaint succeeds and the same is hereby accepted directing the Ops to pay the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as loss to the stocks, Rs.50,000/- as loss to the building and Rs.24060/- as loss to the machinery. In total the petitioner shall be entitled to the sum of Rs.2,24,060/- less the amount already paid by the Ops to the petitioner. It is made clear that the said amount of Rs.2,24,060/- less the amount already paid i.e. 11,000/- already paid shall further fetch the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of surveyor report i.e. 29.6.2003 till the realization of the whole decretal amount. The Ops are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to records after due compliance.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, has filed appeal No.261/2006 and State Bank of Patiala filed appeal No.2808/2006.
There is a delay of 306 days in filing of appeal No.2808/2006 the condonation of which has been sought by moving an application alongwith the appeal.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds taken in the application, the delay of 306 days in filing of appeal No.2807/2006 is condoned.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellants it has been argued that the District Consumer Forum has erred in taking into account the estimate loss while deciding the complaint and ignored the actual loss assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor of the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the claim of the complainant was already settled in full and final settlement and the amount was paid to complainant which was received by him without any protest and thereafter filed false and frivolous complaint.
We find force in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants. The perusal of the report of the surveyor reflects that the total loss was assessed for Rs.53,000/- and the complainant was paid the settled claim as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. By now it is well settled law that surveyors report is an important document unless and until it is proved contrary by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. In the instant case, the complainant has not produced any evidence which could falsify surveyors report. The documents produced by the complainant are not believable. No liability can be fastened upon State Bank of Patiala because the goods on the date of fire were pledged. In such like cases it has been seen that the claimants claim exaggerated amount by submitting procured documents in their favour but such a practice of the false claimants cannot be allowed to sustain. As complainants claim was settled and the amount was paid to him which was received by the complainant without protest, therefore, it does not lie to his mouth that his signature were obtained by the surveyor on blank papers. Complainant is an educated person and is running business by setting up an industry and such a false plea taken by him is not genuine. Complainant has failed to establish that his signature were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Honble National Consumer Commission in case RAJ KUMAR versus UNITED India INSURANCE CO. LTD., III(2011) CPJ 354 (NC), has held that after receiving the insurance claim in full and final settlement by signing Discharge Voucher, the claimant cannot reopen his claim unless and until it is proved that discharge voucher was obtained by the Insurance Company by undue influence, threat or misrepresentation. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts. Hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
For the reasons recorded above, both these appeals are accepted, impugned order is se aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing each of the appeals, be refunded to the respective appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
The original judgment/order be attached with appeal No.261/2006 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.2808/2006.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 27.03.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member