Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Sehtia Shoes on 26 February, 2008
Again Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Sehtia Shoes" (2008) 5SCC page 400 has held that "Filing of a complaint is, therefore, not barred; but it has to be proved that agreement to accept a particular amount was on account of coercion. In the instant case, this relevant factor has not been considered specifically by the District Forum, State Commission and the National Commission. Though plea of coercion was taken by claimant-respondent, same was refuted by the appellant. There is no dispute that the discharge voucher had been signed by the respondent. There has to be an adjudication as to whether the discharge voucher was signed voluntarily or under coercion".
Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 24 August, 2009
It is dated 03.02.2014 and addressed to OP No.2/insurer. On this basis there is plea by OP No. 4 in its written version that this amount (Rs.12,429/-) has been paid by OP No. 2 to complainant. Alike is the deposition on oath by Op No.2's Assistant Manager-Shivali Sharma through her duly sworn affidavit Ex.DW-1/1. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Sri Venkateswara Syndiate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another" (2009) 8SCC Page 507 has given due importance to the report of the licensed surveyor. It has held in Para 31 & 32 of its judgment in following terms:-
M/S. Pankaj Trading Company vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 19 February, 2020
15. Insurance Company, on the basis of stand taken by OP No.4 (its surveyor) and on the basis of duly sworn affidavit of Shivali Sharma-its Assistant Manager has laid stress upon documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and proved that complainant has accepted Rs.12,429/- towards full and final satisfaction and discharge of his claim. Document (Ex.R-3) also bears signature of complainant. At legal pedestal, under implication of law, it is held that complainant has exercised his sole domain and wisdom while putting his hand on document on document Ex.R-3 and receiving amount of Rs.12,429/-. There is no element of any force, coercion, undue influence on complainant, as his complaint sans such quality plea. This circumstance would obviously foreclose the claim of complainant to claim full repair amount of Rs.1,23,630/-. While observing so, this Commission gains strength from ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in case titled as "M/s Pankaj Trading Company and others versus National Insurance Company Ltd." (4 connected Revision Petitions No. 2771 to 2774 of 2017, decided on 19.02.2020), wherein it has been held that complainant/consumer is estopped from claiming any further amount after executing discharge voucher and accepting the amount in full and final settlement of claim.
The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Through ... vs Jay Shri Ram Paddy Parboling Unit & Jai ... on 20 November, 2015
16. Hon'ble Apex court in case titled as "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Sri Venkata Padmavathi R and B Rise Mill" (2000) 10SCC page 324 has held that: "unless it is contended and proved that full and final settlement of the claim has been obtained under fraud, coercion or undue influence, such a settlement is binding upon the parties". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
1