Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs JOGINDER KAUR SAHNI

THE present appeal is directed against order dated 20.6.2000 passed by District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi passed in Complaint Case No. 1872/99 entitled Mrs. Joginder Kaur Sahni v. THE Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another.

BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are, that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') with the grievance that the respondent was covered for personal accident under the insurance policy Cover Note bearing No. 648948 dated 9.2.1996 for the period 10.2.1996 to 9.2.1997. The respondent had injured herself and had been confined to bed for the period from 6.1.1997 to 19.3.1997 and thereafter confined to the house from 19.3.1997 to 22.4.1997 and as such had lodged a claim under the policy in question for the sum of Rs. 45,993/-. However, the appellant had passed the claim of the respondent for the amount of Rs. 21,831/- only and had paid the same to the respondent vide cheque No. 397447 on 15.7.1997. The complainant had thereafter been requesting for the payment of balance amount but despite repeated request and reminders, the appellant had failed to make the payment. Accordingly the respondent was constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum claiming the balance amount of Rs. 24,162/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident together with compensation of Rs. 5,500/- and cost of Rs. 2,500/-. The appellant in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum had stated that the amount of Rs. 21,831/- was paid to the respondent in terms of the policy and the said amount was duly accepted by the respondent in full and final settlement of her claim, and since the respondent had also executed a discharge voucher of her own free will, she was not entitled to any further amount. It was, therefore, prayed that there being no deficiency in service on its part, the complaint filed by the respondent was liable to be dismissed with costs. The learned District Forum had allowed the complaint with the directions to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 24,162/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 15.7.1997 till the date of payment and also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission.

WE have heard the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that after having executed the discharge voucher in full and final settlement of her claim and having accepted the amount offered to her, the respondent is not entitled to any further amount and as such the learned District Forum has erred in awarding the balance amount claimed by the respondent together with interest. Insofar as the above said contention of the appellant is concerned, it is not denied on behalf of the appellant that a protest letter dated 15.7.1997 (copy placed on record) was sent by UPC to the appellant by the respondent wherein the respondent had specifically stated that she had been compelled to sign a blank discharge voucher in full and final settlement of her claim, before the cheque for Rs. 21,831/- was handed over to her and that she had not accepted the amount in question of her free Will but under duress and as such had lodged her protest the same day. In view of the above said letter, it is apparent that the amount was accepted by the respondent under compulsion and that the respondent had lodged her protest on the very same day. So far as the said finding of the learned District Forum is concerned, there appears to be no infirmity so as to call for any interference on our part. As regards the other contention of the appellant that the respondent has wrongly calculated the balance amount due to her, the respondent has pointed out that the impugned order dated 20.6.1997 was amended and a certified copy of the same dated 8.8.2000 has been placed on record. As per the amended order, the balance amount payable to the respondent, calculated at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per week pertains to the period 6.1.1997 to 22.4.1997 and not 6.1.1997 to 19.3.1997, in terms of the policy, whereas the appellant has calculated the amount payable till 19.3.1997 only. The appellant had not objected to the said amendment of the impugned order. Even otherwise as per the terms of the policy, the insured was entitled to compensation for temporary total disablement so long as the insured was totally disabled from engaging in any employment or occupation. As per record and as per the finding of the learned District Forum, the respondent suffered temporary total disablement for the period 6.1.1997 to 22.4.1997 and as such the above said contention of the appellant is also not maintainable.

THE appellant has also disputed the rate of interest awarded on the ground that award of interest @ 18% p.a. is on the higher side and has relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case entitled United India Insurance v. M.K.J. Corporation, reported as III (1996) CPJ 8 (SC). We are of the view that the appellant is justified on this count, in view of the decision referred to above as well as the decision of Hon''ble National Commission in case entitled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mrs. and Mr. H.K. Kadakia and Another, reported as 1986-2000 Consumer 5704 wherein it was been held that the award of interest @ 18% p.a. was excessive, and the same was reduced to 12% per annum. In consequence the present appeal is partly allowed to the extent that interest awarded @ 18% p.a. vide impugned order is reduced to 12% per annum. Subject to the said modification, the appellant is directed to comply with the impugned order within 45 days of the receipt of this order. In the circumstances of the case, however the parties are left to bear their own costs. The above mentioned appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal partly allowed.