Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.     This issue also came to the consideration of this Commission in Anshupati Fibres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. CC/32/2007 decided on 14.1.2015 and the following view was taken:

  6.      Section 14 of the Contract Act which defines 'Free Consent' reads as under:-
  "14.   'Free consent' defined.--Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by--
(1) coercion, as defined in section 15 (2) undue influence, as defined in section 16, or (3) fraud, as defined in section 17, (4) misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, (5) mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21 and 22.

Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake."

       

It would thus be seen that a consent is a free consent unless it is obtained by use of coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation or its given on account of a mistake, subject to the provisions contained in Section 20 to 22 of the said Act.  'Coercion' is defined in Section 15, 'undue influence' is defined in Section 16, 'fraud' is defined in Section 17 and 'misrepresentation' is defined in Section 18 of the Act.  The aforesaid Sections read as under:-

(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;

(4) any other act fitted to deceive;

(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.

18. "Misrepresentation" defined.-"Misrepresentation" means and includes -

(1) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;

(2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to the person committing it, or anyone claiming under him; by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;

No case of coercion is made out by the complainant Company, since there is no allegation of committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of the complainant, with intention of causing the complainant to enter into any settlement."

9.     In the present case, the only plea taken in the letter dated 30.9.2015 sent by the complainant to the OP was that they were forced to sign the Discharge Voucher as the insurer refused to release their claim amount in the absence of the discharge voucher.  Assuming the said allegation to be correct, the refusal of the insurer to release the claim amount in the absence of a discharge voucher, in my view, does not amount to fraud, misrepresentation, coercion of undue influence as defined in the Indian Contract Act. If the insurer was insisting upon execution of the Discharge Voucher as a pre-condition for release of the assessed amount and the complainant was not willing to do so, nothing prevented it from filing a consumer complaint or a Civil Suit and seeking an interim order, directing the insurer to pay the said amount.   Though, it is vaguely alleged in the consumer complaint that the complainant company was already in a lot of distress due to undue delay of five years and was suffering heavy business losses on a daily basis, no such allegation was even made in the letter dated 30.9.2015.  Moreover, no documentary evidence such as the Balance Sheet and the Profit and Loss Account of the complainant has been placed by the complainant before this Commission to prove that the complainant company was in a financial distress during the relevant period and was suffering losses in its business on account of the claim amount not being made available to it.  Therefore, it would be difficult to accept the plea that the complainant was compelled to execute the discharge voucher on account of any financial distress or hardship.