SRI JAYAJOTHI And CO. LTD. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

COMPLAINANT owned a textile mill which was covered under fire insurance policy taken from the opposite party. During the currency of the policy there was a fire on 1.8.1994 and consequently damage was caused to the complainant. Claim was lodged by the complainant with the Insurance Company for the actual loss suffered due to fire amounting to Rs. 1,26,44,725/-. It is not disputed that a sum of Rs. 54,80,230/- was paid by the Insurance Company on 14.10.1996 and another sum of Rs. 5,51,390/- was paid to the complainant on 14.2.1997. Thus a total sum of Rs. 60,31,620/- was received by the complainant in full and final settlement of his claim under the aforesaid claim of fire under the policy in question.

ON 21.5.1997 this complaint was filed under which the complainant claimed Rs. 26,77,430/- towards interest and further sum of Rs. 93,94,095/- towards balance of the insurance claim. These two amounts comprise as under : II. Interest due claim as per para 16 In the written version filed by the Insurance Company an objection was taken that the complaint would not be maintainable after the complainant had settled his claim arising out of the fire in question. We put it to the learned Counsel for the complainant and gave him time to satisfy us as to when protest, if any, was lodged with the Insurance Company after the complainant had accepted the amount in full and final settlement of its claim and further he would also tell us if before accepting the amount any correspondence was exchanged between the parties under which complainant might have even expressed some reluctance to accept the amount. This has not been done. Mr. R. Prakash, Counsel for the complainant referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills & Ors., II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=VI (1999) SLT 590=(1999) 6 SCC 400, to contend that mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect of the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Law laid down in this judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case. In fact, we have been following this judgment in a number of cases. Here it is clear case that without any protest or even raising an eyebrow complainant accepted the amount in full and final settlement of its claim. Then suddenly this complaint is filed seven months after the receipt of the first amount and three months after the receipt of the second amount. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this complaint for us to hold that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and to exercise our jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This complaint is, therefore, dismissed. Complaint dismissed.