ASHWANI AGGARWAL OF KALKA vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE appellant Ashwani Aggarwal had presented the complaint before the District Forum, Ambala which stands dismissed by its order dated the 21st of January, 1991 and is under appeal. THE gravaman of the complainant''s case is that he had purchased a motorcycle which he got insured with the respondent United India Insurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Subsequently the said motorcycle was stolen and remained untraced and the complainant filed his claim with the respondent Insurance Company who admittedly paid a sum of Rs. 17,600/- only against the said policy. THE appellant''s stand was that he was entitled to the full amount of Rs. 20,000/- and Consequently claimed the balance of Rs. 2,400/- as redress.

IN the written statement the respondent Company took the firm stand that the complainant had already accepted a sum of Rs. 17,600/- without any protest in full and final satisfaction of his claim vide discharge certificate duly issued and signed by him. A preliminary objection was raised that in the light of the above the appellant had no locus-standi to present the complaint. On merits it was explained that the amount of Rs. 17,600/- was duly worked out after deducting depreciated value of the motorcycle and keeping in view the assessment report of the surveyor. Further the complainant being fully satisfied had even issued a letter of subrogation in favour of the respondent Company in the event of motorcycle being recovered. Somewhat surprisingly, the complainant did not lead any evidence even by way of his own affidavit on the record and rested content on the somewhat sketchy complaint by way of a letter addressed to the President of the Forum and the documents attached thereto. The respondent on the other hand, apart from other evidence, placed on record Annexure B, the discharge certificate admittedly signed and issued by the complainant. The subrogation certificate marked ''C'' was also brought on the record and the authenticity of these and other relevant documents was not put in dispute.

The District Forum in a fairly detailed order considered the respective stands and came to the conclusion that the discharge certificate marked ''B'' admittedly signed and executed by the complainant in full and final satisfaction of his claim was binding upon him. It rejected the stand of the appellant that he had signed the same without knowing its contents on the ground that a person of his standing and education holding the responsible post of a Branch Manager of the nationalised bank (and often dealing with discharge certificates and subrogation letters in due course) could hardly take the plea that he was not bound by the same. It was further noticed that neither in the pleadings nor in the course of the arguments was it anybody''s case that any fraud had been practised upon the complainant in obtaining his signature on the discharge certificate. Concluding that the complainant could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate, and that he was bound by his deed, the District Forum dismissed the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

MR. C.L. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the appellant has presented the somewhat tenuous case of his client with considerable ability and vehemance. In assailing the assessment of the discharge certificate marked ''B'' (admittedly signed by the complainant) by the District Forum, he had sought to submit that the said document was executed by the complainant either without knowing the import of contents thereof or the same was perhaps signed in bank. It was attempted to be argued that it is the practice of the respondent Insurance Company to secure such like documents before the settlement of the claim. In sum the stand was that the complainant was not bound by his own deed, or his signature on the discharge certificate marked ''B''. The basic argument was that the motorcycle in question was stolen within three months of its purchase on the 3rd of February, 1989 and consequently any depreciation or reduction in its insured value of Rs. 20,000/- was not permissible at all. The aforesaid contentions have inevitably to be weighed against the basic stand taken on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company. Its firm and undisputed case was that admittedly the invoice price of the motorcycle was only Rs. 18,987/- only. After its theft the matter was entrusted to an independent surveyor duly licenced by the Government of India who made a regular assessment report on the appellant''s claim. It was on the basis of the said assessment report that the claim of the complainant was computed at Rs. 17,600/-. Thereafter the complainant executed the discharge certificate and also a subrogation deed in favour of the Insurance Company and accepted the payment without protest in full and final settlement of his insurance claim.

DESPITE the eloquence of the learned Counsel for the appellant we are unable to detect enough merit therein to dislodge the considered finding of the District Forum on the issue involved. What prominently meets the eye herein is the undisputed fact that the complainant is a highly qualified professional. As his letter-head indicates he holds the degree of Master of Commerce and the Diploma of Company Secretary apart from other high academic qualifications. Admittedly at the material time he had risen to the rank of the Branch Manager of a nationalised bank namely The State Bank of Patiala and was thus very well aware about the execution and import of commercial documents like a discharge certificate and a subrogation deed. It does not easily lie in the mouth so highly qualified a person, and a responsible banking executive to say that he did not understand the import of executing the discharge certificate or that he had chosen to sign the prominently printed and hand written contents of the said document in blank. Even a plain look at the discharge certificate marked ''B'' admittedly signed by the complainant would totally dislodge the case now set up on behalf of the appellant. After the bold letterhead of the United India Insurance Company Limited and the relevant columns of the amount to be paid and the person receiving the same, it is promptly printed thereon as under:- "Receive from the United Insurance Company Limited the aforesaid sum in full and final discharge of claim upon them as per the said particulars".

It bears repetition that the appellant has executed and duly put his signature immediately below the aforesaid caption. The amount of Rs. 17,600/- to be paid is expressly mentioned both in letters and figures which is to be payable to the claimant. Even Mr. C.L. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the appellant had fairly conceded the signature of the complainant on the said document. In such a situation it is somewhat idle to contend on the part of a person of the complainant''s status and professional experience that he did not understand the import of the document on which he placed his signature or that he is not now to be bound by the same. The District Forum has pointly noticed that it was not the case of the complainant before them that any fraud or misrepresentation had been practised upon him by the respondent company in the execution of mark ''B''. In the absence of any such plea at the trial it seems obviously impossible for the complainant to repudiate the import of the said document or his admitted signature thereon which were affixed with his eyes open. What is of even greater significant is the fact that the appellant herein was the complainant before the District Forum and the burden lay entirely upon him to prove that he had been over-reached or defrauded in the execution of the discharge certificate marked ''B'' by the respondent. That burden has indeed not been remotely discharged. The appellant/complainant apart from addressing a sketchy letter to the President of the District Forum by way of complaint and attaching some documents thereto had not even chosen to put his own affidavit in support of his case nor did he lead any further evidence or care to step into the witness box himself, after his claim was stoutly controverted by the respondent Insurance Company. Both in law and in substance there is no legal evidence worth the name in support of the somewhat up-hill case which is now sought to be set up on behalf of the appellant. It has been recently held by this Commission that even in the summary procedure before the District Forum, the complainant can only succeeded on the basis of legal evidence and on proven documents. Both of them are entire lacking in the present case.

THE District Forum considered the matter in some depth and came to a conclusion in the terms following:- "THErefore, the contention of the complainant that the discharge certificate marked ''B'' signed by him does not bind him is without force. Nowhere in his pleadings or even during the course of his arguments he alleged that the respondent had practised a fraud on him while obtaining his signature on the discharge certificate marked ''B''. Thus mark ''B'' binds the complainant to all intents and purposes and a plain reading of mark ''B'' shows that the complainant received an amount of Rs. 17,600/- from the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of Rs. 20,000/-".

We are clearly inclined to affirm the aforesaid finding and see no adequate reason to deviate there from.

NOW apart from the above what further merits notice is the fact that the discharge certificate does not stand in isolation. It is not in dispute that apart from this the appellant had also executed a subrogation deed with comprehensive clauses therein. This has been duly executed before the Executive Magistrate on the 7th of October, 1989 with full formalities. By this subrogation deed the appellant abandoned all his ownership rights in the motorcycle in favour of the respondent Insurance Company in the event of its subsequent recovery. There can be no doubt at all that the appellant has executed this document as well with fully open eyes. Subsequent to the execution of the document mentioned above and other formalities, the appellant has admittedly accepted the sum of Rs. 17,600/- from the respondent company voluntarily. Neither in the discharge certificate nor in any subsequent communication did he choose to take the stand that the said amount was accepted under protest or conditionally and that the same was subject to any further claims to be made by him. It is equally significant that nowhere in the complaint or in the pleadings was it expressly averred that the appellant had executed the documents including the discharge certificate either without understanding the meaning or import thereof or without reading the same etc. It would appeal that the stand now sought to be taken on behalf of the appellant, is in the nature of a after-thought to bolster a further claim against the respondent. That being the situation it is legally impossible for the complainant to retrace or retract from his own documents with the result that inevitably he is bound by his signature and his deed. On over all view of the matter it is manifest that the appellant after some initial hesitation had ultimately accepted the amount of Rs. 17,600/- in full and final settlement of his claim, secured the payment and use of the said amount and has now turned round to claim some thing over and above it. The District Forum was thus correct in holding that the appellant cannot be allowed to aprobate and reprobate. We are inclined to affirm the view rather than dislodge the same. The appeal must therefore, fail and is hereby rejected. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.