NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 329 OF 2011
(From the order dated 13.10.2010 in First Appeal No. 3342 of 2007 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)
M/s Bhukker Electricals
Through proprietor Baldev Singh
Israna, Panipat, Haryana Petitioner
versus
The Oriental Insurance Company
G.T. Road, LIC Building
Near Bus Stand, Panipat Respondent
District Panipat, Haryana
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Malik, Advocate
Pronounced on 3rd July, 2012
O R D E R
ANUPAM DASGUPTA
This revision petition is against the order dated 13.10.2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 3342 of 2007. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent insurance company and set aside the order dated 24.10.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (in short, ‘the District Forum’) by which the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the petitioner (complainant before the District Forum) with the following award:
“For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to make payment of Rs.1,81,000/- with 9% interest from the date of earlier payment, i.e., 30.03.2007 till realisation together with Rs.3,300/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order”.
2. The petitioner (through its proprietor) was the complainant before the District Forum with the allegation of deficiency in service against the respondent/opposite party – OP, in that the latter had settled the insurance claim of the complainant/petitioner at Rs.1,58,000/- though its claim for indemnification of the loss of its insured goods damaged in a fire that occurred in the night of 20.10.2006 was for a much higher amount. The complainant prayed for award of Rs.6 lakh, including Rs.4 lakh towards the insurance claim.
3. The complaint was opposed by the insurance company mainly on the ground that the duly appointed surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.1,93,000/- and after deducting the value of salvage (Rs.35,000/-), the net payable amount came to Rs.1,53,000/-. The insured accepted the payment of Rs.1,58,000/- “in full and final settlement” under a signed Discharge Receipt. He was, therefore, not entitled to any higher amount, much less claim compensation for the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP.
4. The main ground on which the District Forum partly allowed the complaint was that the surveyor had failed to give convincing reasons to disbelieve the value of stocks reflected by the stock statement which was Rs.3,74,929/- and which, in the opinion of the District Forum, was duly supported by purchase bills. Accordingly, the District Forum passed the order as excerpted above.
5. In appeal, before the State Commission, the OP/respondent insurance company primarily argued that the complainant/insured was not entitled to any claim higher than Rs.1,58,000/- for which he had issued a signed Discharge Receipt in full and final settlement. The insurance company further pointed out that after receiving this amount, the insured did not protest nor did it file any complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman.
6. After due consideration, the State Commission allowed the appeal relying on the ratio of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of United India Insurance v Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Others and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v ASA Singh Cotton Factory and Others [(1999) 6 SCC 400].
7. We have heard Mr. R. S. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission of this revision petition and considered the documents produced along with the revision petition.
8. A photocopy of the Discharge Receipt signed by the proprietor of the firm, according to which he accepted Rs.1,58,000/- as full and final settlement of his insurance claim has been produced before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the petitioner produced any document before the District Forum (or, the State Commission) to demonstrate that he had, soon after signing the Discharge Receipt, protested against the amount of settlement or alleged that he was coerced into signing the said Discharge Receipt. The only statement in the revision petition, totally unsupported by any documents produced before the District Forum, is that the respondent insurance company had played a “game of calculated fraud, misrepresentation and under coercion made the petitioner to receive the cheque of Rs.1,58,000/- without settling the entire claim of the petitioner and the said amount was received by the petitioner under protest and without prejudice and only as part claim amount”.
9. Learned counsel has also not been able to show us the petitioner’s version, if any, filed before the State Commission in response to the appeal filed by the respondent insurance company.
10. The law settled by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned cases is summarised in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Court’s decision which are reproduced below:
“4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is true that the award of interest is not specifically authorised under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called, ’the Act’) but in view of our judgment in Sovintorg (India) Ltd. vs. State Bank of India we are of the opinion that in appropriate cases the forum and the commissions under the Act are authorised to grant reasonable interest under the facts and circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or bymis-representation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, mis-representation, under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief. However, (sic, So) where such discharge voucher is proved to have been obtained under any of the suspicious circumstances noted hereinabove, the tribunal or the commission would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher and acceptance of the insurance claim would not estop the insured from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances as noticed earlier. The Consumer DisputesRedressal Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act shall also have the power to fasten liability against the insurance companies notwithstanding the issuance of the discharge voucher. Such a claim cannot be termed to be fastening the liability against the insurance companies over and above the liabilities payable under the contract of insurance envisaged in the policy of insurance. The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act.
5. In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence,mis-representation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints. The National Commission however granted relief solely on the ground of delay in the settlement of claim under the policies. The mere delay of a couple of months would not have authorised the National Commission to grant relief particularly when the insurer had not complained of such a delay at the time of acceptance of the insurance amount under the policy. We are not satisfied with the reasoning of the National Commission and are of the view that the State Commission was justified in dismissing the complaints though on different reasonings. The observations of the State Commission in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. shall always be construed in the light of our findings in this judgment and the mere receipt of the amount without any protest would not always debar the claimant from filing the complaint”.
[ Emphasis supplied]
11. In view of the fact that the petitioner/insured failed to produce any material to show that it ever objected to or protested against the settlement of its insurance claim at Rs.1,58,000/-, there is no alternative but to conclude that it did indeed accept, without any demur, the sum of Rs.1,58,000/- as full and final settlement of the insurance claim.
12. As a result, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the revision petition in limine.
Sd/-
…………………………………………
[ Anupam Dasgupta ]
Sd/-
………………………………………….
[ Suresh Chandra ]
satish
