NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Suresh Chandra, Member
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Manager —Petitioner
versus
Rajan Sood —Respondent
Revision Petition Nos. 4 & 5 of 2013
Decided on 19.8.2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Whether or not discharge voucher / receipt signed by party should amount to valid discharge of liability of other party, is a question of fact.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Destruction of household goods in fire—State Commission allowed appeal of complainant and enhanced amount of compensation to Rs.4.00 lacs with 9% interest—Once insured has received amount in full and final settlement of his insurance claim and signed discharge voucher, he cannot be permitted to reagitate his claim unless insured is able to establish that discharge voucher was obtained by opposite party under undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or coercion— Whether or not discharge voucher / receipt signed by party should amount to valid discharge of liability of other party, is a question of fact—If signatory to discharge voucher / receipt is able to establish that he was compelled to sign discharge voucher because of fraud, misrepresentation, pressure tactics or coercion etc. by opposite party, he would still be entitled to raise issue in judicial forum dehors having signed discharge voucher—Receipt signed by respondent/complainant was not a discharge voucher signed voluntarily by respondent/complainant in full and final settlement of his claim—State Commission has considered these important aspects and has passed well-reasoned order which is quite just and fair—Revision Petition dismissed.

       Held: It would be clear from the observations of this Commission in those two cases reproduced above, in the first case of Haryana Federation (supra), the Insurance Co. had sent specific offer of full and final settlement and for this purpose, the Insurance Co. had sent a covering letter along with the discharge voucher and it was specified that the demand draft in question was enclosed along with discharge voucher towards full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioner. Since the petitioner/complainant chose to encash the demand draft, it was held that he had by his own conduct accepted the offer and proceeded to receive the amount in furtherance of that acceptance. The insurance company in that case had proved the receipt of the offer by the complainant/petitioner along with the demand draft and discharge voucher. In the other case of Shree Balaji Woollen Mills, the process of settlement of claim was voluntarily initiated by the petitioner/complainant itself and then acceptance of the cheque on account of settlement of the claim was held to be voluntarily acceptance of that amount towards full and final settlement. In view of these facts, the pleas taken by the petitioners/complainants in both the cases were rejected and their petitions dismissed.

        As discussed above, the facts and circumstances of the instant case are different. Although receipts / voucher signed by the complainant indicate that the payment has been taken by the complainant in full and final settlement of discharge of his claim, the aforesaid discharge voucher cannot be said to have been signed by the petitioner of his own volition. Admittedly, the fire accident took place on 15.08.2006 resulting in total loss of household goods of the complainant. The claim was filed promptly and despite that insurance company sat over the insurance claim till 23.01.2008 and suddenly offered him a cheque of Rs.1,67,515/- in full and final settlement of his claim. From the above circumstances, it is clear that the complainant who had lost household goods in fire accident and had been waiting for settlement of his claim for more than a year, accepted the cheque offered by the petitioner / company in full and final settlement under coercion to salvage a part of the loss suffered by him. Thus, the settlement relied upon by the petitioner is not a settlement based on free consent. As such, the petitioner cannot take Advocateocateantage of the same. Otherwise also, the petitioner insurance company has not pointed out any evidence which may indicate that before the issue of the said cheque, any settlement negotiation was going on between the parties or any consent letter from the complainant for full and final settlement of the claim was obtained. In this context, the observations made by the State Commission in para 12 of the impugned order are very important. In view of this, it is clear that the claim of the petitioner Co. in para 4 of its written statement to the effect that “the complainant has given the consent for the settlement of the claim and after considering the same, the same was approved” is not correct.

        In the circumstances, we hold that the receipt in question signed by the respondent/complainant was not a discharge voucher signed voluntarily by the respondent/complainant in full and final settlement of his claim by the complainant but the receipt signed by him was under coercion and in pursuance of misrepresentation and false assurances given by representatives of the petitioner company to consider the remaining claim separately. In this context, it may not be out of place to mention that it is customary on the part of the insurance companies to invariably mention as a matter of routine that whatever they are offering is in full satisfaction of the pending claim of the party concerned. However, a formal offer to that effect followed by a discharge voucher by the insured are essential to treat it as a full and final settlement case so as to bar the insured from raising a further claim. In the instant case, there is neither a formal letter of offer from the petitioner company nor a prior consent given by the complainant agreeing to accept an amount which was substantially lower than his claim. Simply because the complainant encashed the cheque received by him after a long period of wait from the petitioner, cannot be allowed to stand against him to prove that he had accepted the part payment in full and final settlement of his claim of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of total loss of the insured articles. As stated above, the State Commission has considered these important aspects of this case and has passed a well-reasoned order which is quite just and fair in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order which would call for our interference with it (Paras 19 to 22)

       Result: Revision Petition dismissed.