National Insurance Company Ltd. vs KRISHNA RICE MILLS

THIS revision petition impugns the order dated 7.11.1999 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 939 of 1999.

BY this order, the State Commission directed the petitioner (hereafter, the Insurance Company) to pay a sum of Rs. 61,915 to the complainant (respondent herein) along with interest @ 10% per annum after three months from the date of lodging of the claim with the Insurance Company till its realization. This was order partially modified the order dated 12th April, 1999 of the District Forum, Kurukshetra. The main facts of this case are that the respondent had insured, with the Insurance Company, a diesel generator set for Rs. 3 lakh during period 20.10.1995 -19.10.1996. The said generator was allegedly damaged completely on 15.8.1996. The Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, in this context inspected the generator set on 19.8.1996 and assessed the loss at Rs. 85,230 on repair basis, as against Rs. 1,56,340 on total loss basis. After applying other relevant factors and clauses, the net payable amount was assessed at Rs. 73,474. As against this, the Insurance Company settled the claim on 28.6.1997 at Rs. 66,170. The respondent (original complainant) thereafter, filed a complaint before the District Forum, Kurukshetra, claiming actual loss amounting to Rs. 3 lakh with interest @ 24% per annum from September 1996 till its realization as well as interest on Rs. 66,170 from September 1996 till 26.6.1997, in addition to compensation of Rs. 50,000 on account of harassment by the Insurance Company. By its impugned order, the State Commission awarded additional sums as already stated above.

The petitioner''s main contention is that the respondent (original complainant) accepted the payment of Rs. 66,170 in June, 1997 in full and final settlement of his claim. The Insurance Company has produced a photocopy of the discharge receipt signed by the respondent in this behalf. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argues that neither in the complaint nor in the appeal did the complainant allege that he signed this discharge receipt (by way of unconditional acceptance of Rs. 66,170 as full and final settlement of his claim) under duress, coercion or manipulative practice on the part of the Insurance Company. He, therefore, submits that the complainant is not entitled to claim a sum larger than Rs. 66,170 nor are the Fora below correct in holding any deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company or awarding additional sums of money that have been granted in the impugned order. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner lays emphasis on the ratio of the Apex Court''s judgment in the case, United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Others, II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=VI (1999) SLT 590=(1999) 6 SCC 400.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent (complainant), however, argues that the complainant was compelled to buy a new generator set on account of delay in settlement of his claim for insurance payment and in that process, the rice mill could not operate for nearly two months, thus causing considerable financial loss to the complainant. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered the documents placed before us, including the Apex Court''s judgment (supra). The petitioner''s contention is that the respondent (complainant) had accepted the payment of Rs. 66,170 in full and final settlement of his insurance claim, issued a discharge receipt dated 28.6.1997 in respect thereof and at no stage alleged either coercion or duress in acceptance of the said amount is borne out fully by the documents on record. In facts, in fairness to the learned Counsel for the complainant, it may be added that he admitted during the hearing of this petition that no such allegation was ever made by the complainant in the proceedings before the lower Fora. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent was unable to produce any reliable documentary evidence in support of his contention that the respondent''s factory had to be closed down during the alleged period of two months (August - September 1996) nor has any documentary evidence produced before the lower Fora by way of reliable estimate of the loss of income on account of alleged closure of the rice mill. Moreover, the damage to the complainant''s generator set occurred in August 1996. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor who inspected the damaged generator set within four days of the damage. The Surveyor submitted his report and the matter was settled in June 1997. This can''t be held to be unacceptable delay in settling the claim. We also note that in the United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Others case (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: "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 by misrepresentation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief. "In the instant case the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainant had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence, the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints."

(Emphasis supplied)

THE facts and circumstances of this case are thus squarely similar to what has been observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment (SCC page 403 supra). In view of the foregoing, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the State Commission is set aside and it is clarified that the respondent (original complainant) will not be entitled to any payment other than that of Rs. 66,170 which he has already accepted in full and final settlement of the insurance claim. Revision Petition allowed.