C. YOGISH MALLYA vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

IN this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection A ct, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 9,01,644/- from the opposite partiesThe National INsurance Company Ltd.

THE complainant an industrialist insured the machinery and the stock of his plastic industry with the opposite parties. THE insured sum of the machinery was Rs. 1,50,000/- and the stock for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. THE period of insurance was from 3.3.90 to 2.3.91. A fire accident took place in the said industrial unit at about 9.45 a.m. on 18.9.90 during the currency of the policy period, wherein the stock and the machin ery insured got damaged. It is the case of the complainant that the loss towards the machinery was Rs. 3,04,000/- and loss towards stock was Rs. 4,34,161/-. The complainant after the said mishap made claim with the opposite parties. The opposite parties deputed its Surveyors and on receipt of the said survey report settled the claim of the complainant with opposite party No. 2, the Canara Bank, the Banker of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/-.

It is the grievance of the complainant that the said settlement with opposite party No. 2 was arbitrary and the loss sustained by him was as a matter of fact, more than Rs. 7,00,000/-. So the complainant filed the complaint seeking the balance amount of Rs. 4,01,644/- towards the loss for the damage to the machinery and the stock and also a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the loss of income.

OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed its version and averred that soon after receipt of the report of the fire accident, a Surveyor was deputed and on receipt of the said survey report the claim in a sum of Rs. 1,48,386/- was settled with opposite party No. 2 as the policy was obtained by the insured through opposite party No. 2. So the said amount so settled was paid to the Canara Bank on obtaining settlement voucher. Opposite party No. 1 averred that the claim settled with opposite party No. 2 was perfectly in order and there was no deficiency in service.

OPPOSITE party No. 2 filed its version and averred that the complainant had borrowed huge sums of money from it for the purpose of business on the security of the machinery and stock in the said factory premises. As such goods were insured against the risks of fire and other risks. The policy was obtained with the Bank Clause which enabled opposite party No. 2 to claim and receive payment of compensation directly from opposite party No. 1. So opposite party No. 2 had received the said amount of Rs. 1,48,356/- from opposite party No. 1 in full and final settlement of the claim and the said amount was credited to the account of the complainant. During enquiry the complainant examined himself as C.W. 1 and got Exs. C. 1 to C. 7 marked in evidence. Opposite party No. 1 examined its Administrative Officer as R. W. 1 and its Surveyor as R. W. 2 and got Exs. R1 to R 6 marked in evidence.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, perused the pleadings and the material on record.

THE complainant has admitted that the said policy of insurance was obtained from opposite party No. 1 under a Bank Clause. THE complainant in his evidence in this regard stated thus : "..THE Insurance Company has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,48,356/- to the Canara Bank towards the loss in the said fire accident. THEre was a Banker Clause appliable in the policy. I was making payment of the premiums to the Insurance Company. It is not true to suggest that I had not sustained the loss more than the amount settled by the Insurance Company with the Canara Bank. THE Insurance Company immediately deputed the Surveyor on receipt of my claim, assessed the claim, assessed the loss and settled the same with Canara Bank within six months."

Ex. R. 3(B) is the said Bank Clause in the insurance policy, Ex. R.3. The said Bank Clause reads as under: It is hereby declared and agreed : (1) That upon any monies becoming payable under this policy the same shall be paid by the Company to the Bank and such part of any monies so paid as may relate to the interests of other parties insured hereunder shall be received by the Bank as Agents for such other parties. (2) That the receipts of the Bank shall be a complete discharge of the Company therefor and shall be binding on all parties insured hereunder. (3) That if and whenever any notice shall be required to be given or other communication shall be required to be made by the Company to the insured or any of them in any matter arising under or in connection with this policy, such notice or other communication shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made if given or made to the Bank. (4) That any adjustment, settlement, compromise or reference to arbitration in connection with any dispute between the Company and the insured or any of them arising under or in connection with this policy if made by the Bank shall be valid and binding on all parties insured hereunder, but not so as to impair the right of the Bank to recover the full amount of any claim it may have on other parties insured hereunder and; . . . .."

This would clearly go to show that money becoming payable under the policy, Ex. R. 3 to the insured shall be received by the Bank as agents for such other parties; and the said receipt of the Bank shall be a complete discharge of the Company shall be valid and binding on all the parties insured hereunder.

IN the present case, it is an admitted fact of the complainant that opposite party No. 1-the INsurance Company on receipt of the claim deputed the Surveyors, assessed the claim and settled the same with opposite party No. 2-the Banker. Ex. R. 6 is the voucher issued by opposite party No. 2 on receipt of the said claim amount of Rs. 1,48,356/- from opposite party No. 1, which reads as under : "Received from National Insurance Company Limited, Branch III, Bharath Buildng, M. lore, Divisional office/Branch, the sum of Rupees one lakh forty eight thousand three hundred fifty six only in payment of the full and final settlement of claim No. 602309/11/90/003 under Policy No. 602309/11/00128/90 Insured : Laxmi Plastics."

The said receipt Ex. R. 6 would go to show that opposite party No. 2 received the said amount of Rs. 1,48,356/- from opposite party No. 1 in token of full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant under the said policy.

THE National Commission considered such an aspect of the matter in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Achar Kumar Garg, reported in I (1996) CPJ 140 (NC)=1996 (1) CPR 4, held as under : "Where once a claim is paid and received in full and final settlement, there is no deficiency in service and no relief against Insurance Company can be granted under Consumer Protection Act."

Having regard to these facts, it is clear that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties i.e., opposite party No. 1 and so having regard to these facts, we are constrained to hold that there is no substance in this complaint. In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed.

THE parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.