1. Insurance claim for crop damage — Agreement for full and final settlement — Subsequent claim for higher amount before Consumer Commission. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 724
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.P.Sethi : S.Saghir Ahmad
New India Assurance Company Limited
Versus
Venkata Padmavathi Randb Rice Mill
Case No. : 2681 of 1992
Date of Decision : 7/21/99
A party who agrees to a sum in full and final settlement of a claim is legally bound by that commitment, unless it is proven that the agreement was vitiated by fraud, coercion, or undue influence.
Headnote:(A) Insurance Law / Contract Law - Full and final settlement - Agreement to accept a specific amount in settlement of a claim - Once a party agrees to a sum in full and final settlement, they are bound by that commitment, provided the agreement is not vitiated by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
Stocks of rice and paddy were insured against flood and cyclone. Following damage caused by a cyclone and heavy rains, multiple surveyors assessed the loss at varying amounts. Eventually, a surveyor recommended a specific sum for full and final settlement, which the insured agreed to. However, following an investigation into alleged collusion between the insurer's staff and the insured, the insured approached a consumer commission seeking a higher amount based on one of the previous surveyor reports, claiming they were no longer bound by the settlement agreement. The commission awarded the higher amount along with interest.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the insured had agreed to accept the recommended sum in full and final settlement of the claim. Furthermore, there were no allegations that the agreement was vitiated by fraud, coercion, or undue influence.
Issues: Whether a party, having agreed to a specific sum in full and final settlement of an insurance claim, is bound by that commitment and precluded from seeking a higher amount before a consumer forum in the absence of evidence that the agreement was vitiated.
Ratio Decidendi: A party is bound by their commitment to a full and final settlement agreement unless it is established that such an agreement was obtained through fraud, coercion, or undue influence. (Para 6)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a party is bound by a full and final settlement agreement when a higher claim is subsequently sought before a consumer forum. (Para 5 )
3. A settlement agreement for full and final payment is binding unless it is proven to be vitiated by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. (Para 6 )
4. Parties are bound by a full and final settlement agreement in the absence of fraud, coercion, or undue influence. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal partly allowed — Claim reduced to the agreed settlement amount with interest. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Is a party bound by a 'full and final settlement' agreement in an insurance claim?
Yes, if a party agrees to accept a specific amount in full and final settlement of a claim, they are bound by that commitment. (Para 6 )
7. Under what circumstances can a full and final settlement agreement be challenged or set aside?
A settlement agreement can be challenged if it is vitiated by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. (Para 6 )
(1) STOCKS of rice and paddy belonging to the respondent Mill were insured with the appellant for a sum of Rs 27.50 lakhs under a policy of insurance issued by the appellant which also covered the risk of damage/loss from flood and cyclone. Kakinada town where the respondent Mill is situated was hit by cyclone and heavy rains between 9-5-1990 and 13-5-1990 as a result of which the stock of rice and paddy of the respondent Mill was damaged. The matter was reported to the appellant who appointed Mr M.V. Subba Rao as a surveyor. He conducted a preliminary survey on 10-5-1990 and submitted his report indicating the loss and damage to the stock of paddy and rice due to cyclone and heavy rains. The appellant, thereafter, appointed two surveyors to carry out joint and final survey of the loss occasioned to the respondent. The two surveyors were (7) M/s Vardhman Insurance Service Pvt. Ltd., and (2) Shri Nageswara Rao.
(2) ON 5-11-1990 Shri Nageswara Rao submitted his report assessing the loss at Rs 5.25 lakhs. On 12-11-1990 M/s Vardhman Insurance Service Pvt. Ltd. submitted their report assessing the loss at Rs 23.30 lakhs. In view of the huge divergence in the two reports submitted by the two surveyors, the appellant appointed a third surveyor M/s Mehta and Padamsay who submitted their report on 18-3-1991 and assessed the loss at Rs 14.80 lakhs and recommended Rs 14.16 lakhs to be paid in full and final settlement which was agreed to by the respondent.
(3) IN the meantime, CBI wrote to the Head Office of the appellant that some staff of the appellant had colluded with the respondent and the loss had been assessed at a much higher figure than the actual damage and that the matter may be investigated by the Vigilance Department.
(4) THE respondent was informed that his claim would be settled after the matter was considered by the Vigilance Department. It was at this stage that the respondent approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a claim of Rs 24.50 lakhs. It was mentioned in the petition that they were no longer bound by their agreement to accept Rs 14.16 lakhs in full and final settlement. The matter was contested by the appellant, but the Commission by its order dated 10-4-1992 allowed the claim for a sum of Rs 23.30 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum with effect from 10-9-1990. It is against this judgment that the present appeal is filed.
(5) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent having agreed to accept Rs 14.16 lakhs in full and final settlement of the claim, were not justified in approaching the National Commission for being paid an amount of Rs 23.50 lakhs in terms of the report of the third surveyor and that the Commission was not justified in awarding that amount to the respondent.
(6) THERE is no dispute between the parties that the respondent had agreed to accept Rs 14.16 lakhs in full and final settlement of their claim. That being so, they are bound by their commitment, particularly, as there is no allegation anywhere before the Commission or before us that the agreement was vitiated by fraud, coercion or undue influence.
(7) THE appeal is partly allowed. The claim of the respondent shall stand allowed for a sum of Rs 14.16 lakhs instead of Rs 23.50 lakhs as ordered by the National Commission. Since the respondents are entitled to interest for the period from 14-3-1991, the date of agreement, to the date on which the Commission ordered the payment of the amount to the respondent, we direct that the appellant shall pay an additional sum of Rs 84,000 to the respondent making the total amount payable to the respondent as Rs 15 lakhs. The payment shall be made within four months.
(8) THE appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
