National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jiwan Spinners Pvt. Ltd. vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 22 January, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1032 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 13.10.2011 in First Appeal No. 2294/2006 of the State Commission Haryana, Panchkula) Jiwan Spinners Pvt. Ltd. ........ Petitioner Delhi Sanoli By Pass Opposite Sector 25 Panipat, Haryana Through The Director Shri Ashok Singla Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. ......... Respondent Regd. Office At SCO No.36-37, Sector-17A, Chandigarh BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR.SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Dated : 22nd January, 2013 ORDER
PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition is directed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula ( for short, the State Commission) dated 13.10.2011.
2. Briefly stated facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner company got insured stock of raw material, finished goods as also building and machinery with the respondent-opposite party vide two insurance policies which were valid for the period 24.02.2004 to 23.022005.
Due to fire accident on 04.03.2004, the stock in process, material stocked in the factory and the card machine got damaged. The matter was reported to the P.S.Chandni Bagh Panipat on 05.03.2004. The opposite party appointed a surveyor who submitted his report to the insurance company estimating the loss due to fire as Rs.7,73,059.39P. It is alleged that the insurance company, however, paid a sum of Rs.2,15,176/- to the petitioner through a cheque no.105857 dated 07.09.2004 and the payment of balance amount of loss was illegally denied to the petitioner. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The opposite party in his written statement denied the allegations of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted Rs.2,15,176/- as full and final settlement of his claim. The opposite party also denied that petitioner company was forced to sign unfilled form of settlement by the insurance company and that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.
4. The District Forum vide its order dated 25.08.2006 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was coerced to accept the amount of Rs.2,15,176/- and sign unfilled form and blank papers. Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the claim of the petitioner and directed the respondent opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,60,380/- to the petitioner on account of loss of stock and machinery as per Surveyor Report together with interest @ 18% from 31.08.2004 till the realisation of the amount.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent / opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner had accepted a sum of Rs.2,15,176/- in full and final settlement of his claim under the insurance policies and signed the discharge voucher voluntarily. Thus, the State Commission accepted the appeal and reversed the order of the District Forum.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission has preferred this revision petition.
7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the State Commission has passed impugned order in complete disregard of the settled law and failed to consider the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. 1999 (II) CPJ 10 SC. It is contended that State Commission in the aforesaid judgment has held that the consumer forum can impose liability upon the insurance company notwithstanding execution of Discharge Voucher by the insured provided the Discharge Voucher has been obtained by the insurance company by resorting to fraud, pressure, undue influence or coercion. Learned counsel further submitted that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that as per the report of the respondents own Surveyor, the loss was quantified at Rs.7,73,059.39P and if that is so, the petitioner could not have accepted Rs.2,15,176/- in full and final settlement of discharge of his claim unless there was undue influence and coercion exerted upon the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has contended that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the signatures of the petitioner were obtained on the Discharge Voucher by practicing fraud, undue influence or coercion.
Therefore, as per the law laid down in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, after having settled the matter and taken cheque of Rs.2,15,176/-, the petitioner now cannot re-agitate the matter and claim further amount under the insurance claim.
9. The only question which requires consideration in this revision petition is whether or not the Discharge Voucher mentioning payment of Rs.2,15,176/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioner was obtained by the respondent by practicing fraud, misrepresentation or coercion?
10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The case of the petitioner as set up in para 6 of the complaint, copy of which is placed on record is that the officials of the respondent-company forced the complainant to sign blank unfilled form as a pre condition to give the cheque to him and they threatened that if the petitioner failed to sign the blank forms, no cheque would be issued to him against his claim. This allegation of the petitioner is belied by the averments in the registered notice dated 04.12.2004 sent to the opposite party by the petitioner wherein it is alleged that the respondent-company took almost seven months in deciding the claim of the petitioner and during that period, harassed and mentally tortured him.
It is also alleged in the notice that the amount of Rs.2,15,176/- was accepted by the petitioner under protest and pressure reserving the right to recover the balance amount from the respondent company. It is nowhere mentioned in the notice that the petitioner was threatened by the officials of the respondent company that if he failed to sign the blank forms, no cheque would be delivered to him and he would not be paid anything against the claim. This material contradiction in the stand taken by the petitioner in notice dated 04.12.2004 and his complaint lead us to the obvious conclusion that the stand of the petitioner in his complaint is an after thought with a view to exhort further money after having received a cheque from the respondent in full and final settlement of his claim. We may note that on perusal of copy of the discharge voucher we found that petitioner has accepted the cheque in full and final settlement of his claim without any protest.
11. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the State Commission on consideration of the Discharge Voucher dated 31.08.2004 signed by the petitioner and acceptance of the cheque of Rs.2,15,176/- in full and final settlement of claim, allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim of the petitioner with following observations:
DISCHARGE VOUCHER Received from the New India India Assurance Company Limited, the sum of Rs.2,15,176 ( Two Lakh fifteen thousand one hundred and seventy six only which I / We agree to accept in full satisfaction and discharge or all claims present or future under policy no.353900/11/03/00048 / 353200/11/03/02711 in respect of which occurred on or about the _____ day of ______ year _________.
Sd/-
For Jiwan Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
Director / Manager Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the Discharge Voucher dated 31.08.2004. We find force in the contention r raised on behalf of the appellant opposite party. It is well settled law that once the claim has been accepted by the claimant without any objection by signing discharge voucher in full and final settlement of claim offered by the Insurance Company, thereafter, the claimant cannot be allowed to reopen his claim seeking any further relief. However, mere execution of consent letter in the form of letter of indemnity cannot deprive the claimant of consequential relief if discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or under coercion.
There is no evidence on behalf of the complainant that any fraud or misrepresentation or coercive method was adopted by the Insurance Company upon the complainant at the time of signing the discharge voucher dated 31.08.2004 and as such the complainant is not entitled for any further compensation.
Admittedly, the complainant, is running a business of raw material, finished goods, semi finished goods which are used in the mill and must have signed the discharge voucher dated 31.08.2004 with full knowledge after going through the contents mentioned therein and therefore question of any pressure tactics by the opposite party upon the complainant does not arise. The District Consumer Forum has not appreciated the facts of the present case in its true perspective and committed error in allowing the complaint.
As a sequel of our aforesaid discussions, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
12. In view of the above, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order of the State Commission which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.
.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE) ( PRESIDING MEMBER) (SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER Am/