Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6.   The State Commission vide impugned Order dated 13.08.2014 dismissed the complaint being not maintainable.

7.       Aggrieved by the said Order of the State Commission, the complainant company filed the instant appeal before this Commission.

8.       Learned counsel for the complainant company has argued that the complainant company was compelled by way of undue influence and coercive bargaining to receive the said amount and to execute a clear disbursement voucher. He further argued that as the complainant company was facing acute financial crisis, therefore, it was constrained to execute a disbursement voucher in full and final satisfaction and as per the procedure adopted by the insurance company, a disbursement voucher duly signed by the insured is received in advance by the insurance company and then the cheque was issued and also the insurance company did not allow the complainant company to make any adverse endorsement on the disbursement voucher, otherwise, the claim cheque would be withheld. He furthermore argued that immediately after receiving the cheque towards the claim amount, the complainant company lodged its protest by letter dated 17.01.2011. He furthermore argued that no plausible reason has been given for obtaining addendum survey report and therefore the revised survey report is totally incorrect and wrong. He also argued that even after executing a clear disbursement voucher, the complainant company is entitled for compensation under the Act, 1986 for the deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills reported in II (1999) CPJ 10 wherein it has been held as under:

9.       Learned counsel further argued that in the present case, the complainant company was compelled and forced to accept the amount and execute a disbursement voucher, therefore, the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He further submitted that the insurance company has violated section 64UM(2), (3) and (4) of the Insurance Act, 1938 by calling the surveyor to submit addendum survey report. In this regard, he also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supremd Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sindhi Sweets & Ors. reported in IV (2007) CPJ 322, wherein it has been held that "accepting or rejecting surveyor's report is only within the jurisdiction of Controller of Authority. No arbitrary and unilateral decision to impose decision of insurer on insured would be imposed Report of first Surveyor if not rejected by the Authority, the Insurance Company bound by the Report of First Surveyor. Second Surveyor appointed without any direction of Controller/Authority".

11.     The only question in this appeal that arises for consideration is whether the discharge voucher was executed in unavoidable circumstances or under coercion or he was in need of money.

12.     It is seen that through letter dated 21.10.2010 which was written by the complainant company to the Sr. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. it was stated that "2. Your Surveyor has deducted excess clause twice, normal as well as additional Excess, which is not as per the standard regulation of the Contractor all risk policy. As we have opted additional excess clause, which is in multiplication of normal excess clause, as such we would request you to deduct only additional excess clause i.e. Rs. 10.00 only". It is clear from the said letter that the complainant company had only objected to the original additional amount but had admitted without any protest that the amount of Rs. 71,34,578/- was commercially acceptable to it. A discharge voucher has also been voluntarily signed at the time of payment. Thereafter a letter was sent on 17.01.2011 claiming additional amount as per the original losses assessed by the surveyor. The protests, if any, in the matter was lodged more than two months after the letter dated 21.10.2020. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills (supra) has been relied by learned counsel for both the sides. In that case, it has been categorically held that despite execution of the discharge voucher, a consumer can make a claim for any excess amount if it is in a position to satisfy the commission that such discharge voucher was obtained from him through fraud, mis-representation, under influence and the like but in the instant case, the complainant company had neither before the State Commission nor before this Commission has brought any material on record to prove any such misdoing on the part of the insurance company at the time of giving the letter dated 21.10.2010 along with discharge voucher. Nor has he brought any material on record to prove financial distress at the time of signing of discharge voucher. The issue of correctness of the addendum survey report would arise only if the discharge voucher was signed under protest. The complainant company has failed to prove that the discharge voucher was signed under protest.