National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Apna Surat Saree Centre vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 4 December, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1394 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 17/10/2011 in Appeal No. 2660/2006 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. M/S. APNA SURAT SAREE CENTRE Pettewar Chowk, through Proprietor, Shaikh Mehtab Jamal Ahmed, R/o Udgir Layur Maharastra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Regional Office No-1 New India Bhawan, 34/38 Bank Street,fort Mumbai Maharastra ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MR. SHIRISH K. DESHPANDE For the Respondent : MR. MAIBAM N. SINGH
Dated : 04 Dec 2015 ORDER
This revision is directed against the order of the Stat Commission Maharashtra dated 17.10.2011 in First Appeal No. 2660 of 2006 arising out of Complaint No. 4 of 2006 filed in the District Forum.
2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that complainant obtained Fire Insurance Policy for sum assured Rs.7.00 lacs from the respondent valid for the period 18.01.2005 to 17.01.2005. The policy covered the risk for fire peril and loss. On the night intervening 14.06.2005 and 15.06.2005, a fire accident took place in the insured premises due to electric short circuit. According to the complainant, as a result of fire, entire stock was gutted and he suffered a loss of Rs.6,75,000/-. Matter was intimated to the police authorities as also the insurance company. The respondent insurance company appointed Surveyor M R Totala to assess the loss. The surveyor on inspection and verification of documents etc. assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,89,520. The insurance company after receipt of report of surveyor sent a letter dated 10.10.2005 informing the complainant that his insurance claim has been approved for a sum of Rs.1,89,520/ and, thereafter, after signing of settlement voucher by the complainant, the cheque of said amount was issued in favour of the complainant. According to the complainant, he had signed the settlement voucher under duress and coercion as he was threatened by the officials of the insurance company that in the event of his failure to sign the settlement voucher, his claim would not be settled. It is alleged that on the very next day, a protest telegram was sent to the respondent which was followed by a legal notice. According to the complainant, the loss suffered by him is much more than the amount paid to him and this amounts to deficiency in service.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing written statement. According to the opposite party, the insurance claim has been settled as per the loss assessed by the surveyor and sum of Rs.1,89,520 has been received by complainant in settlement of his claim without any protest.
4. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings and evidence partly allowed the complaint and directed as under:
"2. The resp. Insurance Company shall pay Rs.82,658/- from 20.10.2005 at the rate of 9% p.a. within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
3. The respondent insurance company shall pay the complainant Rs.2000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost of complaint.
4. The office will take necessary action to send the copies of this judgment to the complainant and the respondent. "
5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent insurance company approached State Commission Maharashtra in appeal and State Commission taking note of the fact that complainant had voluntarily executed full and final discharge voucher allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under:
"9. We heard both the counsel at length in our view it is an admitted fact that complainant voluntarily executed full and final discharge voucher. Complainant did not record protest while accepting the discharge voucher. There is no evidence produced by the complainant that under coercion or undue influence by the insurance company he compelled to accept the full and final settlement. In our view, there is no evidence brought on record by the complainant to show that discharge voucher had obtained him by under coercion or under influence or misrepresentation etc. In our view complainant after obtaining the full and final settlement file the complaint therefore complainant is estopped from claiming further amount as he himself voluntarily executed the discharge voucher in view of insurance company."
6. Learned Shri Sirish K Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that State Commission has committed an error in allowing the appeal and dismissing the complaint ignoring the fact that all through the stand of the complainant was that he was coerced into signing the discharge voucher. It is contended that it is well settled that if a discharge voucher has been signed by a party under coercion whether direct or indirect, it will not be treated as a settlement arrived at on the basis of free consent and it will not be a ground for rejecting the claim. In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Others (1999) 6 SCC 400 as also judgment of this Commission in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Government Tool Room & Training Centre being FA No. 383 of 2005 decided on 17.05.2007.
7. Ld. Shri M N Singh, Advocate for the respondent has argued in support o the impugned order. He has relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC).
8 I have considered the rival contentions. It is undisputed that discharge / settlement voucher was signed by the petitioner on 10.10.2005. The contents of the settlement voucher are reproduced as under:
"Settlement Intimation Letter Claim No. 160903/48/05/00011 RECEIVED FROM THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. the sum of Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Only which I /We agree to accept in full / partial satisfaction and discharge of my / our claim upon the company under Policy No. 160903/48/04/03258 in respect of M/s Aparna Surat Sari Centre Rs. 1,89,520 Signature ________ Name : M/s Aparna Surat Sari Centre"
9 On reading of the above, it is clear that complainant had signed the discharge / settlement voucher in full and final settlement of the claim on the receipt of Rs. 1,89,520/. The issue which needs determination is whether the said discharge voucher was signed by the complainant under coercion? In order to succeed on this plea, the petitioner was not only required to specifically plead coercion but to prove it also. The petitioner has raised the plea of undue influence or coercion in para 10 & 11 of the complaint which are reproduced as under:
"10. That, complainant was continuously following up his claim settlement in the office of respondent. However, the officer and servants of the respondent chooted such types of unpleasant and compelling situation since beginning and thereby informed complainant, the, if the complainant to ready to settle the claim of the complainant will be allowed otherwise, on no of another technical cause the initial will be disallowed. The complainant was already in the shop an account of mishap and so in view of that are being given to him complainant could not that be expended his roal proposal for claim settlement for Rs.6,67,918/- and so under the pressure as well as under influence the complainant kept the respondent, that of ho is disagree with settlement the entire claim shall be disallowed, so only the complainant respondent with out respondent without fare current to the respondent.
11. That respondent sent an intimation on letter to the complainant and asked the complainant to settle the claim for Rs.1,89,920/- for which complainant was not ready however, the officers of the respondent threatened complainant to settle the same otherwise, the entire claim will be disallowed and so consequently complainant though it fit to accept under protest. The amount offered and then to lodge the claim for the enhanced amount. In view of this peculiar situation, under compalling circumstances by keeping mum till the receipt of minimum amount, offered by respondent i.e. Rs.1,89,520/-. The complainant received a cheque bearing no.274521 dated 20.10.2005 for Rs.1,89,250/- complainant received the actual amount at compensation as on 16.11.2005 through the cheque and so on the very second day with consultation with the Advocate the complainant issue a Telegram to the office of respondent informing the fact of protest receipt no.1510 with Sr. no.106 dated 17.11.2005 is enclosed herewith at Sr. no.3."
10. On reading of the above, it is clear that allegation of undue influence / coercion is vague. The complainant has alleged that officers of the respondent threatened the complainant to settle the issue for Rs. 1,89,520 or entire claim will be disallowed and under that pressure he signed the settlement voucher. Neither the names of those officers who threatened him nor their designation have been mentioned. From this, it is clear that plea has been taken just to make a ground for filing a consumer complaint. It is further contended that on the very next day after receipt of amount and signing the settlement voucher, a protest telegram was sent to the office of respondent. To substantiate this plea complainant has only filed a receipt pertaining to sending of telegram. The contents of telegram are not produced by placing copy of the message recorded in the telegram on record. From this it cannot be concluded that any protest telegram was sent by the complainant. Even the copy of the legal notice which was allegedly sent by the complainant to the respondent has not been filed. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the plea of the petitioner that he had signed the settlement voucher under coercion. It may not be out of place to mention that amount paid under settlement voucher was on the basis of survey conducted by A neutral surveyor. There is no explanation that if the complainant was not agreeable to the settlement, then why he encashed the cheque instead of returning alongwith his protest. In view of the above, I do not find fault with the finding of the State Commission which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER