National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Ravindra Spinners Ltd. vs National Insurance Company Ltd. Anr. on 8 July, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2013 (Against the order dated 19.12.2012 in CC No.02/2009 of the State Commission, Haryana) M/s. Ravindra Spinners Ltd., Through its Director Sh. Anish Singla V.P.O. Kabri, Panipat (Haryana) .Appellant Versus 1. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Regional Manager SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 2. National Insurance Company Ltd., Through its manager Near Kishore Theater, G.T.Road, Panipat .........Respondent BEFORE HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Jain, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 08/7/2013. ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, PRESIDING MEMBER M/s.
Ravindra Spinners Ltd. has filed this appeal against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.02 of 2009. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the claim of the Complainant under the policy had been settled by the respondent/National Insurance Co. with payment of Rs.51.89 lakhs on 14.3.2008, which had been accepted by the Complainant in full and final settlement of the claim.
2. The appeal has been filed with delay of 27 days. Explanation for it is contained in the application for condonation of delay. On perusal of the same the delay is condoned.
3. The records submitted on behalf of the appellant have been perused and Mr. Arvind Jain Advocate has been heard at length on behalf of the appellant. The case of the appellant/complainant, as seen from the complaint filed on 7.1.2009 before the State Commission, was that it had received the amount under coercion/compulsion due to financial constraints. The memorandum of appeal also states that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the Complainant accepted the amount under pressure and due to financial problem. It is contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the full and final acceptance cannot be held against the appellant/Complainant as it amounted to reduction of the claim to 75%.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Arvind Jain argued that the allegation of coercion/pressure should have been appreciated by the State Commission in the light of the fact that the Complainant had lost everything in the accident of fire and was left with no option but to accept whatever was offered. However, learned counsel clarified that no specific evidence on the plea of coercion had been led before the State Commission. He accepted that no evidence was produced before the State Commission to show that the amount of Rs.51.89 lakhs was received under protest. He also accepted that the discharge slip acknowledging the payment in full and final settlement was signed on 14.3.2008, while the legal notice was issued by the appellant to the respondent/Insurance Company nearly four months thereafter, on 5.7.2008.
5. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence before it, the State Commission has arrived at the following categorical decision:-
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the Discharge voucher, we find force in the contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties. It is well settled law that once the claim has been accepted by the claimant without any objection by signing consent letter 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 discharge voucher 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 and as such the complainant is not entitled for any further compensation.
6. As seen from the impugned order, the State Commission has relied upon the law as laid down by Honble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh cotton and General Mills & Ors. Etc. 1999 (2) CPC 601 (S.C) as well as the decision of this Commission in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kuka Rice & General Mills, 2008 (1) CPC 28 (Haryana).
7. Considered objectively, the pleadings and the evidence led before the State Commission clearly established that:-
a) That the payment of Rs.51.89 lakhs was received without protest.
b) The discharge slip admittedly signed on 14.3.2008 makes it a full and final settlement of the claim.
c) It took the Complainant nearly four months to give the legal notice of 5.7.2008 on the ground of coercion/compulsion.
d) The consumer complaint itself was filed before the State Commission on 7.1.2009, which makes it almost 10 months from the date of full and final discharge, 14.3.2008.
8. The above facts would by themselves indicate that it is a case of action as an afterthought. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant would indicate that the Consumer Complaint was filed in the background of the information that the Surveyor had assessed the loss to be Rs.70.5 lakhs while the insured had accepted Rs.51.89 lakhs, in full and final settlement. It is thus a case where, as rightly observed by the State Commission, the insured is seeking to reopen his claim for further relief. No evidence was led before the State Commission to show that the acceptance of the appellant/Complainant was obtained by any acts of fraud or misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the respondent/Insurance Company.
9. It is therefore, held that the decision of the State Commission is based on complete and correct appreciation of the evidence on record. There is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal is therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No order as to costs.
.Sd/-
(VINAY KUMAR) PRESIDING MEMBER s./-