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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSA COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Balaji Medicos —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2862 of 2008
(From the order dated 13.5.2008 in Appeal No. 541/2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh)
Decided on 12.7.2013

Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anjalli Bansall, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vijay Kr. Mangla, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Once amount is received towards full and final settlement of claim, complaint for rest of amount is not maintainable.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage to goods stored in godown due to rain—Complaint allowed by State Commission—Complainant after receiving Rs.6,00,533/- towards full and final settlement of claim issued legal notice to OP for release of rest of amount and filed complaint—Filing complaint after many months and that too without pleading, coercion, fraud, undue influence, it cannot be believed that amount was received under protest—Once amount is received towards full and final settlement of claim, complaint for rest of amount is not maintainable—State Commission committed error in allowing complaint—Revision petition allowed. (Paras 5 to 7)

       

ORDER

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 541/2007 – M/s. Balaji Medicos Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was doing business of sale of drugs and pharmaceuticals as a wholesaler and retailer at shop Nos. 2 & 3, Iron Market, Sector 29, Chandigarh and was also running retail business at Sector 32, Chandigarh under the name and style of M/s. Balaji Medicos. Complainant took insurance policy for the goods lying at its godown in Sector 29 for Rs.10 lakhs from OP No. 1/petitioner which was valid from 18.10.2003 to 17.10.2004. On account of heavy rains on the intervening night of 2/3-8-2004, drugs and medicines stored in the godown were damaged, as water had entered into godown. Complainant informed to the OP and submitted claim of Rs.10,08,126.20. OP appointed assessor to assess the loss and at the instance of surveyor, complainant revised claim and lodged claim of Rs.9,08,846/-. OP sent cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- on 26.10.2004 towards full and final settlement, which was received by the complainant under protest. After legal notice, OP did not release payment of Rs.3,08,313/- and in such circumstances, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that stocks of Sector 29 as well as Sector 32 were damaged. Due to rains, surveyor assessed loss of Rs.6,00,533/- for the stocks lying in Sector 32 and this amount was paid to the complainant as full and final settlement and prayed dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by the impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as the amount was accepted by the complainant in full and final satisfaction of the claim, learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint. It was further submitted that stocks of godown of Sector 29 were only insured and as per survey report, payment of assessed loss had been made; even then learned State Commission had committed error in allowing appeal for rest of the amount; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned State Commission after elaborate discussion has rightly allowed complaint and order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. First question to be decided by this Commission is; whether complainant accepted cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- towards full and final settlement of the claim, or not. Complainant in para 10 of the complaint has clearly stated that cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- has been received by the complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim on 26.10.04. It appears that later on by hand “and was received under protest” has been inserted. Affidavit in support of this complaint has also been filed by the complainant and para 10 of the affidavit does not depict receipt of payment under protest. In such circumstances, it can very well be held that cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- was received by complainant towards full and final settlement to the claim. OP/petitioner has clearly mentioned in paragraph 10 of its reply before District Forum that complainant has received aforesaid amount as full and final settlement of the claim. Thus, it becomes clear that complainant after receiving Rs.6,00,533/- on 26.10.2004 towards full and fi






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
whatsapp-icon Back to top