Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

 

8.     However, in the case before us, there is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence etc., on the part of the insurance company, nor was any such case made out before the District Forum.   Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which is relevant in this regard 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, or (2) undue influence, as defined in Section 16, or (3) fraud, as defined in Section 17 or (4) misrepresentation, as defined in Section 18, or (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".

9.     Coercion, undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation are defined in Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 respectively of the Indian Contract Act and reads as under:

15. "Coercion" is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.

Explanation: It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed.

(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.

Explanation: Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.

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

10.   Thus, the consent given by a person would be deemed to be a free consent and would be binding upon the parties to the contract unless it can be shown that it was obtained by exercise of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake as defined in Sections 15, 16, 17 & 18 or by mistake subject to provisions of Sections 20 to 22 of the Indian Contract Act.

11.   In the case before us, there was no such relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties that the opposite parties can be said to be in a position to dominate the will of the complainant company and use that position to obtain an undue influence over the complainant Company.  The Insurance Company does not stand in a fiduciary relationship vis a vis the complainant. Clause (b) of Sub- Section (2) of Section 16 concerns an individual whose mental capacity is affected by reason of age, illness etc. and is obviously inapplicable. Since the Insurance Company cannot be said to be in a position to dominate the will of the complainant, Sub-Section (3) of Section 16 of the Act would also not apply.  There is no allegation of fraud against the insurance company. There is no allegation of concealment of any material fact by the insurance company from the complainant with a view to obtain the consent of the complainant company to the aforesaid settlement.  Therefore, Section 17 of the Act is also not applicable.  There is no allegation of any misrepresentation within the meaning of Section 18 of the Contract Act and, therefore, the aforesaid Section also does not apply.