Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. V.K. Gupta & Associates & 3 Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 18 January, 2018

M/S. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 13 April, 2023

On the basis of above circular Hon'ble National Commission in M/s. V.K. Gupta & Associates (supra) in paragraph No.17 has held that "17. ---------. Based on the circular dated 24.09.2015 of the IRDA, it seems that even if the settlement voucher has been signed, the complainant may pursue the complaint. In the present case, after accepting the settlement amount, the complainants have already written to the Insurance Company stating their dissatisfaction and the manner in which the amount of Rs.15,14,032/- has been deducted. Thus, the complainant has protested after receiving the settlement amount. Thus, on the basis of the IRDA Regulations, complaint needs to be considered on merits in the present case." The above principle laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission on the basis of circular of the IRDA, we are of the considered opinion that signing of discharge voucher does not foreclose the rights of the policy holder to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora. However, we are not inclined to believe the story narrated by learned counsel for the complainant that any blank discharge voucher was signed in compulsion and given to the insurance company. Two discharge vouchers are brought on record one by the complainant which is marked as Annexure C-34 and another is filed by the opposite party marked as Exhibit-Ex OP 15. In discharge voucher Annexure C-34 only Claim No. and policy No. is filled. Revenue stamp and seal over it, is also available in Partly Allowed Page 9 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.R.Sales vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 4 September, 2018

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The submission of counsel for appellant is that discharge voucher, as relied upon by OP was extracted under coercion and undue influence only and it is insignificant document in the eye of law. On the other hand, Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra Advocate counsel for OP argued that complainant executed the discharge voucher with his free consent and as such it is estopped from challenging to the contrary. There is no dispute of this fact between the parties that complainant obtained the insurance policy from OP. The complainant suffered loss due to burglary in his shop and gave intimation to OP in time. FIR was registered by police about above incident of burglary and incident was not found to be fake by OP. The dispute between the parties is only with regard to the quantum of compensation of loss only. The complainant claimed the entire loss amount of Rs.15,52,971/- plus Rs.18,000/-, whereas OP stated that whatever was found proper by surveyor as loss, has already been remitted to complainant by OP. The counsel for appellant challenged the report of surveyor in this case. Counsel for respondent of this appeal contended that report of First Appeal No.298 of 2018 5 surveyor has to be relied upon by the Forum as it carries rebuttable presumption to it. He referred to law laid down by the National Commission in case "V.K. Gupta & Associates & others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd." 2018(I)CPR-693 to the effect that whatever was deducted as per the provisions of the policy by the surveyor and his report has to be relied upon. On the other hand, counsel for appellant, relied upon law laid down in case titled as "Vidhata Cable Co. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another" I(2018)CPJ-405 by the National Commission that claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated on the basis that he had signed the discharge voucher. Discharge voucher was signed under compelling circumstances on account of inordinate delay by the insurance company in setting the claim. As held in this authority by the National Commission, the discharge voucher could be discarded by the Forum in case, it has not been executed voluntarily. Consequently, as held in this authority, we proceed to decide the controversy in this case, as to what is the exact amount of loss suffered by complainant. The report of surveyor has been strongly relied upon by OP in this regard, vide Ex.OP-2. On the other hand, counsel for appellant argued that surveyor has arbitrarily deducted the amount of Rs.1,92,184/- as deduction on account of present business trends of insured prevailing at the time of loss i.e. lower of cost or net realizable value is to be considered for the purpose of assessment of loss of Rs.1,92,184/-. The surveyor after deducting the above amount, deducted the amount of Rs.28,924/- on account First Appeal No.298 of 2018 6 of obsolescence @2.15% and thereafter he deducted Rs.65,818/- as less policy excess @5%. The counsel for respondent/OP could not point out any specific clause in the contract of insurance, during arguments of this appeal, to the notice of this Commission under which the surveyor could cause the deduction of the above amounts. The deduction has to be as per schedule I of the policy in this case. The OP has not placed on record Schedule I of the policy nor brought it to our notice justifying the above deductions by the surveyor. In the absence of Schedule I of the policy on the record by OP, which could raise adverse inference against OP, we find that the surveyor wrongly deducted the above referred amounts in its report. Consequently, the OP is bound to pay the balance amount to complainant, so as to complete the loss amount of Rs.15,52,971/-. The order of the District Forum to the contrary is not correct and is ordered to be reversed in this appeal.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1