Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)
Jbr Enterprises vs 1. Universal Sompo General Insurance ... on 25 June, 2013 cites

United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs K.M.Poonam & Ors on 18 February, 2011

The principle of law, laid down, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. K. Gangadharan`s case (supra), decided by a Four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, therefore, would hold the field. The facts and circumstances of the cases, relied upon, by the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, mentioned in this paragraph, being distinguishable, from the facts and circumstances of the instant case, no help can be drawn by him, therefrom.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 326 - A Kabir - Full Document

United India Insurance vs Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors on 12 August, 1999

In United India Insurance Co. Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. etc. 1999(2) CPC 602 (SC), it was, in clear cut terms, held that mere execution of the discharge voucher could not deprive the claimant of the consequential relief, particularly when such discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or under coercion or by way of coercive bargain. In the instant case, no doubt, the cheque was obtained, in the sum of Rs.15,12,571/-, by the Proprietor of the Complainant, without any protest, but immediately, thereafter, he wrote letter Annexure C-7, to the effect, that he accepted the said amount, only as a part payment, and reserved his right to claim the remaining amount. At the time of signing the discharge voucher, and accepting the cheque, the Proprietor of the Complainant, was in disadvantageous position, whereas, the Insurance Company i.e. the Opposite Parties, were in dominating position. Under these circumstances, it could be said, that it was a case of coercive bargaining, where a person in disadvantageous position, was pitted against a person, which is in a dominating position. In such circumstances, the person in a disadvantageous position, always accepts whatever little, offered to him, otherwise, he may not be able to get anything. It cannot be imagined that a person/ Proprietor of the Complainant, who filed a claim of 24,67,927/-, on account of loss of goods, in fire, would accept a paltry amount of Rs.15,12,571/-, in full and final settlement of claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 257 - R P Sethi - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs The Government Tool Room And Training ... on 17 May, 2007

In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Government Tool Room and Training Centre, 1 (2008) CPJ 267 (NC), it was held that mere execution of discharge voucher and acceptance of insurance claim, did not estop the insured from making further claim. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is, therefore held that the complainant had no meaningful choice, than to sign the discharge voucher, and accept the amount, in full and final settlement of claim. As such, his free consent, in executing the same was not proved. Under these circumstances, the complainant was not estopped from claiming the remaining amount. The appellant/complainant, is, thus, held entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.3,81,809/-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Smt. Laxmi Devi Kakhani vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on 11 October, 2012

15.   Reliance, no doubt, in the written submissions, was placed by the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, on Laxmi Devi Kakhani Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. IV (2012) CPJ 483 (NC), Nirmal Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. IV (2012) CPJ 641 (NC), Raj Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Revision Petition No.354 of 2007, decided on 06.07.2011, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, and Ajay Verma Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. II (2011) CPJ 246 (NC), in support of his contention, that once the amount of Rs.15,12,571/-, was accepted by the Proprietor of the Complainant/appellant, in full and final settlement of the claim, without any protest, he could not claim the remaining amount, as he was estopped from doing so. In Laxmi Devi Kakhani`s case (supra), there was nothing, on record, that the petitioner was compelled, at any stage, to settle the claim, at lesser amount, than what was claimed by her. It was, under these circumstances held that once she accepted the refund unconditionally, she could not claim any further amount. In Nirmal Singh`s case (supra), it was held that the discharge voucher, though signed by the insured, as full and final settlement, may not be treated as final, if the consumer satisfied the Court, that the same was obtained under fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation or the like. In Raj Kumar`s case (supra), similar principle of law, was laid down. In Ajay Verma`s case (supra), it was held that the complainant failed to prove, as to who stopped him, from writing under protest on discharge voucher, and, as such, he could not claim further amount, as the payment made was in full and final settlement of the claim. There is, no dispute, with regard to the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. However, the facts and circumstances of the cases, referred to in this paragraph, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the instant case, it has been held above, that, no doubt, the consent letter sent by the Proprietor of the Complainant, was, in the sum of Rs.18,94,380/-, yet, he was paid only a sum of Rs.15,12,571/-, and he signed the discharge voucher. The Proprietor of the Complainant, in the complaint, as also, in the affidavit, by way of evidence, in clear-cut terms, stated that he was in financial constraints and, as such, in dire need of money. He, thus, being in disadvantageous position and the Opposite Parties, being in dominating position, had no other meaningful choice, than to sign the discharge voucher, on doted lines. Had he written on the discharge voucher, that he was receiving the amount of Rs.15,12,571/-, under protest, he would not have been paid that amount also, as a result whereof, he would have been pushed into further deep financial constraints. Since, the Proprietor of the Complainant was in financial constraints, as his insured stock of medicines and drugs was destroyed in fire, he had to, thus, discharge a number of liabilities. It was, under these circumstances, that the Proprietor of the Complainant accepted, whatever amount was offered and given to him, by the Opposite Parties, being in dominating position, and, immediately, thereafter, wrote the protest letter dated 08.10.2012 Annexure C-7.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs K. Gangadharan on 10 May, 2001

Surely, the Proprietor of the complainant had been coerced to do so. Not only this, in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. K. Gangadharan, 2002 (1) CPC 210, a case decided by a Four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, having similar facts, it was held that if full and final settlement of the claim was accepted, on account of financial hardship, and not on account of free will, the complainant/consumer, could claim the remaining amount, and he could not be said to be estopped by his act and conduct, from claiming the same.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1