National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sandeep Kumar vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 13 March, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4417 OF 2012 (From the order dated 21.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 997/2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) WITH IA/1/212 & IA/2/2012 (DELAY & EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRANSLATION) Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh.Suresh Kumar R/o. 6/435, Old Mahavir Colony, Sonepat Petitioner Versus 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Managing Director, 87, M.G. Road, Mumbai 2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Regional Manager 4th Floor, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17A, Chandigarh 3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Deputy Manager/DM Vardhaman Complex, Opp.Civil Hospital, Sonepat Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarjit Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON_13.03.2013 ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. The main question involved in this revision petition is Whether the Discharge Voucher issued by New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,/OP is voluntary or has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion? The facts germane to this case are these.
2. Sandeep Kumar, complainant, had insured his car with respondent No.1/OP1. The car was valued at Rs.3,82,428/- . During the currency of the insurance policy, dated 15.12.2010, the car was stolen on 30.12.2010. The complainant allegedly accepted a sum of Rs.3,18,721/- in respect of the said vehicle. The complainant himself wrote a letter dated 28.07.2011 which reads as follows:-
To Divisional Manager New India Insurance Company Sonepat Sub:-
Respected Sir, My car No.HR-70A-7156 was stolen in the month of December, 2010 from Murthal, Sonepat. I submit my consent for bill and final payment for Rs.3,18,721/- against that claim. Please settle the claim as soon as possible.
Thanking you, Sandeep Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar 6/435,Old Mahaveer Colony, Sonepat.
Mobile : 09991918447 Suresh Bhardwaj 28/07/2011.
2. The contention raised by the insurance company was that since it has paid Rs.3,18,721/- in full and final settlement of his claim, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint while placing reliance on the authority, National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sitaram Satpal & Company, decided by the State Commission vide order dated 29.02.2012.
The State Commission also dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, while placing reliance on this Commissions order passed in New India Assurance Company Vs.C.P.Mathur, reported in 2011 (1) CPC 317.
4. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that IDV is in the amount of Rs.3,82,428/-. He contended that the petitioner is entitled to this much amount. He has also invited our attention towards various authorities reported in (1) Chandigarh Petro Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors., First Appeal No.315/2007, decided by this Commission on 14.12.2012 (2) Noor Ali Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., (2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 565, (3) Vikram Greentech India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 599 and (4) Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 279.
5. He has also invited our attention to Queens Bench Division (Commercial Court), 12,13 December, 1988, 10 January, 1989 in case reference Atlas Express Ltd. V. Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd., reported in QBD, 641, Dictum of Lord Scarman in Pao On Vs. Lau Yiu [1979] 3 All ER 65 at 78-79 applied, wherein it was held that Where a party to a contract was forced by the other party to re-negotiate the terms of a contract to his disadvantage and had no alternative but to accept the new terms offered, his apparent consent to the new terms was vitiated by economic duress. Applying that principle, the pressure applied by the plaintiffs to the defendants to renegotiate the terms of the contract amounted to economic duress which vitiated the contract. In any event, there was no consideration for the new agreement. Accordingly, the plaintiffs could not sue to recover the amount owning under the new rate and the claim would be dismissed.
6. Instead of touching the heart of the problem, counsel for the petitioner just skirted it. This must be borne in mind that the above said consent letter was written on 28.07.2011. The protest letter was written for the first time by the petitioner on 07.09.2011, i.e. after lapse of 40 days. The silence for such a long time is pernicious. The consent letter clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that the petitioner submitted his consent for bill and final payment for Rs.3,28,621/- against that claim. The matter was settled at the request of the complainant himself. There is no inkling on the record which may go to show that the petitioner had lodged any protest. The letter dated 28.07.2011, sent by him, goes to scotch all the doubts created in Commissions mind.
This is the most important letter.
The Honble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors., II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC), was pleased to hold :-
4.. The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission, under the Act that such Discharge Voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise or undue influence or by mis-representation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made, would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the Discharge Voucher and acceptance of the insurance claim would not estopple insured, from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances, as noticed earlier. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and Commissions, constituted under the Act, shall also have the power to fasten liability against the Insurance Companies notwithstanding the insurance of the discharge voucher.
Such a claim cannot be termed to be fastening the liability against the Insurance Companies, over and above the liabilities, payable under the contract of insurance envisaged in the policy of insurance. The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the Insurance Policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act.
5. In the instant case, the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or the lie. In the absence of pleadings and evidence, the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints ...
[EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]
7. This view was also followed in cases reported in Raj Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2011) CPJ 354 (NC) and M/s. Shiv Ram Gramodyog Sansthan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., RP No.3689 of 2009, decided by this Commission on 29th May, 2012, wherein, the claims of consumer were dismissed.
8. The instant revision petition has been filed against the concurrent findings of both the fora below.
9. The revision petition is without merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. We would have imposed sufficient costs on the petitioner for wasting our precious time, for nothing. However, since a small amount is involved in this case, therefore, we refrain from imposing any cost upon the petitioner.
....
(J.M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER dd/10