Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through its Manager & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
M/s Jakardo Print Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Through its Partner, Mr. Jayantilal B. Jain —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 3574 of 2012
(From the order dated 14.03.2012 in First Appeal No. A/07/1402 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai) With IA/1/2012 (Stay)
Decided on 9.10.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Mohan Babu Agrawal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Discharge Voucher cannot be proof of final settlement.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Loss of goods on account of flood—Partial sanction of claim by Insurance Company—State Commission ordered for payment of remaining amount—State Commission rightly held that terms of policy clearly covered both stock and stock in process and as such plea raised by Insurance Company that process stock was not covered cannot be accepted—Complainant had accepted Rs. 20,08,904/- as petitioner insisted—There is no inkling in discharge voucher that the payment was made in full and final settlement of dispute pending between parties—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 3 and 4)
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member —This revision petition has been filed by the insurance company wherein the order passed by the State Commission has been called into question. The complainant, M/s. Jakardo Print Graphics Pvt. Ltd., made a claim in the sum of Rs. 34,79,781 with the petitioner, Insurance Company, due to loss of goods on account of flood, on 26.07.2005. The insurance company partly sanctioned the claim in the sum of Rs. 20,08,904/-. Thereafter, the complaint was filed before the District Forum with the prayer that the remaining amount be directed to be paid to the complainant. The District Forum dismissed the claim. However, the State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the complainant, wherein it ordered that the remaining amount in the sum of Rs.14,76,427/- be paid to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, i.e. 09.01.2007, till its realization.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has invited our attention towards the insurance policy. The relevant portion of the insurance policy runs as follows:-
Category I Stocks
1. Stock of Rolled Paper
Sum insured Rs.35,00,000
Esc l% 0
Escalation Premium (Rs.) 0
3. This is an indisputable fact that the Surveyor recommended Rs.34,79,781/- for the above said loss. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the raw material was covered and the process stock was not covered under the above said policy. The State Commission mentions that as per proposal form amount of insurance cover of Rs.35,00,000/- was sought for “stock and stock in process”. The learned State Commission rightly held that terms of policy clearly covered both stock and stock in process and as such the plea raised by the Insurance Company that process stock was not covered cannot be accepted.
4. No other point was raised before us. However, we have perused the discharge voucher which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be voluntary. It clearly states that the complainant had accepted Rs.20,08,904/- as the petitioner insisted. There is no inkling in the discharge voucher that the above said payment was made in full and final settlement of the dispute pending between the parties. The revision petition is lame of strength and is therefore dismissed.
Revision petition dismissed.
********
