National Consumer Disputes Redressal
R.D. Papers Ltd. Through Its Managing ... vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through ... on 30 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2004)CPJ101(NC)
ORDER
1. This complaint pertains to balance of the insurance claim.
2. Complainant is the manufacturer of paper by recycling waste papers. He took an insurance policy of Rs. 32.00 lakhs from the opposite party-New India Assurance Co. Ltd., of which Rs. 20.00 lakhs were for the cost of raw material (waste paper stored in open). During the currency of the insurance policy a fire broke out on 20.9.1994 in the factory of the complainant and the entire stock of waste paper was reduced to ashes. A First Information Report was lodged and claim was also advanced for insurance. The Complaint records correspondence between the parties and the appointment of surveyor etc. and its report. On 18.3.1998 Insurance Company wrote a letter to the complainant stating that its claims for Rs.8,03,224/- had been approved. It would appear that U.P. Financial Corporation claimed lien on this amount as complainant had taken loan from the U.P. Financial Corporation. It was only on 26.7.99 that an amount of Rs. 8,03,224/- was released by the Insurance Company and a receipt was obtained from the Complainant. The amount of Rs. 8,03,224/- was rounded off to Rs. 8,03,3000/-. Complainant filed this complaint on 27.7.2001 with the following prayers.
"(i) The Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 may be jointly severally ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 12,15,290/- to the Complainant towards the remaining claim.
(ii) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay interest @ 18% on an amount of Rs. 8,03,000/- w.e.f. 20.9.1994 to 29.7.1999 i.e. the date of payment of the claim in part.
(iii) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay interest @ 18% on an amount of Rs. 12,15,290/- w.e.f. 20.9.1994 to the date of actual payment.
(iv) An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- may be awarded towards mental agony and physical ... due to declaration of the unit as a sick unit.
(v) Litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/- including postage, stationary, conveyance, Advocate fee etc. may also be awarded to the Complainant against the Opposite Parties."
3. It may be noted that opposite party No. 2 is Senior Divisional Manager and opposite party No. 3 is Branch Manager of the Insurance Company with their office at Kanpur.
4. On notice being issued Insurance Company filed its objections. It is stated that the amount of Rs. 8,03,224/- was accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement of its claim and that complainant was thus estopped from making further claim. In support of its submission Insurance Company filed a receipt dated 26.7.1999 signed by the complainant. It records "Agni dava dinank 20.7.94 ke purn or antim bhugtan hetu" (in full and final settlement of its claim in respect of fire on 20.7.94). It is contended by the complainant that the words quoted above were interpolated by the Insurance Company in the receipt and that it was a clear case of forgery. Complainant has also filed a phot copy of the receipt given by him which does not bear the date not the words "Agni dava dinank 20.7.94 ke purn or antim bhugtan hetu" (in full and final settlement of its claim in respect of fire on 20.7.94). Thus there is serious dispute between the parties about the genuiness of the receipt for Rs. 8,03,224/- given by the complainant. Insurance Company has also raised various grounds and have filed documents to contend that the claim of the complainant is bad and that while settling the claim it had taken into account the report of the surveyor and the detective services.
5. There is yet another objection raised by the Insurance Company that the complaint is barred by limitation. As noted above it was on 18.3.1998 that Insurance Company said that it had approved the claim for Rs. 8,03,000/- while the complaint was filed on 27.7.2001. According to Insurance Company cause of action arose on 18.3.1998 for the complainant to claim any balance amount under the policy. Prima facie the submission of the Insurance company appears to be correct. However, in view of the fact that we are not entertaining the complaint we do not like to say anything more on this issue.
6. After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lakhs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.
7. It would also appear that earlier complainant approached the State Commission for its relief but on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, the complaint was withdrawn and filed before the National Commission
8. In this view of the matter, this complaint is dismissed. This dismissal, however, will not come in the way of complainant in case it approaches the Civil Court or any other appropriate forum for the reliefs claimed.