Sudarshan Kumar vs United India Insurance Co Ltd

-SUDARSHAN Kumar appellant had secured the insurance policy from M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. respondent for the period from 28. 2. 1994 to 27. 2. 1995 covering the risk of stocks, trade of gold, old and new ornaments, jewellery of all kinds whilst in transit to be sent as per registered insured post parcel. On 30. 12. 1994 the appellant sent seven registered parcels duly registered and insured to Lucknow but were lost in transit. The claim was lodged by the appellant with the respondents. It was repudiated. The appellant filed a complaint in this Commission. The said complaint was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 19. 3. 1999 with the observation that the appellant can still produce the necessary documents before the respondents as demanded by them and the respondents would re-examine the matter and settle the claim within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such documents.

THE appellant supplied necessary documents to the respondents. The Surveyor was appointed and the Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 5,57,837 and the same was paid to the appellant which has been accepted by him in full and final settlement of his claim. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to either the amount of Rs. 1,04,889 or to the interest amount. Parties produced the evidence.

Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "district Forum") considered the matter and dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 5. 6. 2001.

HENCE the appeal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that there was no dispute about the insurance policy and that the gold ornaments/jewellery were sent by registered insurance cover by the appellant to various persons in Lucknow and that these articles were lost in the transit. Hence the respondents are liable to compensate the appellant. It was also submitted that the value of the lost goods has been assessed by the complainant to be Rs. 6,62,726. 70 p. Therefore, they are entitled to this amount. They are also entitled to interest from the respondents.

IT was further submitted that the signatures of the appellant were obtained by the respondents under pressure and, therefore, the voucher signed by the appellant accepting the money in full and final settlement may be looked in that context. Reference was made to the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors. , II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=vi (1999) SLT 590. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents was that since the appellant has accepted the amount to the tune of Rs. 5,57,837 as assessed by the Surveyor in full and final settlement of his claim he is not entitled to rake up the matter again. Reference was made to the judgment of Hon''ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another v. Bashir Ahmad Rangrez and Brothers, reported as 2000 CCJ 773. It was further submitted that the judgment relied upon by the complainant is not applicable to the facts of this case. Record has been perused and the submissions have been considered.

IT was laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Others'' case that the appellant has to prove fraud or undue influence or misrepresentation at the time of executing the voucher by him in full and final settlement of his claim by the claimant. In the present case, the fraud and misrepresentation are not alleged by the appellant but his submission was that he was pressurized to sign on it. However, there is no evidence to that effect. Even if the appellant was pressurized for the sake of argument to sign the voucher of discharge in full and final settlement he could have accepted the payment under protest but no such words were written by him above his signatures at the time of executing the voucher of discharge. Therefore, the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant doesn''t apply to the facts of the present case.

THIS version of the appellant that he was pressurized also appears to be unbelievable for the reason that had it been so, after receiving the amount and after signing the discharge voucher, the appellant would have challenged the legality of the voucher and to claim the outstanding amount as well as the interest immediately without loss of time. But the complaint was filed by him on 11. 10. 2000 i. e. after about 5 months. This clearly shows that filing of the complaint is based on after-thought by concocting the story of signatures under pressure for raking up the controversy which already stood finalized by the acceptance of the amount by the appellant in full and final settlement of his claim. On the other hand, in Bashir Ahmad Rangrez and Brothers'' case (supra) Hon''ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that after the execution of the discharge voucher towards full and final settlement of all claims against the appellants, no further claim can be raised before the Commission nor the later has the competence to award the same. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as P. K. Ramaiah and Company v. Chairman and Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corpn. , 1994 (3) SCC (Suppl.) 126; Nathani Steels Ltd. v. Associated Constructions, 1995 (3) SCC (Suppl.) 324; and Salima Jabeen v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1998 SLJ 357.

It was held by the Hon''ble Delhi High Court in the judgment, Double Dot Finance Limited v. Goyal MG Gases Limited And Anr. , (2005-3) PLR 5 (Delhi), that if amicable settlements are set aside on flimsy grounds, no party would enter into compromise. It was held in para 14 as under: "if such pleas are sustained, the sanctity and purpose of ''amicable settlements'' between the parties would stand totally eroded. Amicable resolution of disputes and negotiated settlement is ''public policy of India''. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as Legal Services Authorities Act, 1995 call upon the Courts to encourage settlement of legal disputes through negotiations between the parties. If amicable settlements are discarded and rejected on flimsy pleas, the parties would be wary of entering into negotiated settlements and making payments thereunder as a shrewd party after entering into a negotiated settlement, may pocket the amount received under it and thereafter challenge the settlement and reagitate the dispute causing immeasurable loss and harassment to the party making payment thereunder. This tendency has to be checked and such litigants discouraged by the Courts. It would be in consonance with public policy of India. "

EVEN the Hon''ble National Commission in the judgment reported as Dilip Kumar Wamanrao Daryapurkar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1997 CCJ 1362, was pleased to hold that where the party has filed the complaint after accepting the full and final payment of his claim, the complainant has no right to allege any deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company. Moreover, the respondents had appointed the Surveyor who had assessed the loss for an amount of Rs. 5,57,837. The said amount was paid by the respondents to the appellants. Therefore, the amount of loss was not determined arbitrarily but it was paid as per the assessment made by the Surveyor. The said amount was accepted by the appellant in full and final settlement in the month of May 2000. Therefore, the cause of action survives to the appellant.

THERE is no illegality in the impugned order dated 28. 6. 2001 passed by the learned District Forum. There is no ground to interfere with the said order. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.