SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member & Mr. Mahesh Chandra, Member
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
JOGINDER KAUR SAHNI—Opposite Party
Appeal Nos. A-1599 of 2000 and 1365—Decided on 24.1.2004

Advocates:
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Ms. Deepa Chacko, Advocate.
For the Opposite party :Mr. M.S. Dutta, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that acceptance of an amount under duress does not constitute full and final settlement, and the court has the authority to address the calculation of the balance amount and the rate of interest awarded.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - 1986, Section 12 - Summary: The court discussed the respondent's claim under the insurance policy and the appellant's contention that the amount paid was in full and final settlement. The court found that the respondent had accepted the amount under duress and was entitled to the balance amount. The court also addressed the calculation of the balance amount and the rate of interest, ultimately reducing the awarded interest from 18% to 12% per annum.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming the balance amount under an insurance policy after the appellant had paid a lesser sum, alleging that the amount was accepted under duress.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent had accepted the amount under compulsion and was entitled to the balance amount. The court also addressed the calculation of the balance amount and the rate of interest, ultimately reducing the awarded interest from 18% to 12% per annum.

Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance of the amount under the insurance policy, calculation of the balance amount, and the rate of interest awarded.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent had accepted the amount under duress and was entitled to the balance amount. The court also addressed the calculation of the balance amount and the rate of interest, ultimately reducing the awarded interest from 18% to 12% per annum.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant was directed to comply with the impugned order within 45 days, with the interest awarded reduced to 12% per annum. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

ORDER

Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member—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.

2. 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/-.

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

6. 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 t








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top