NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.K. Jain, P.M and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
NATRAJ HANDLOOMS PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2009.
Decided on : 16-02-2015
Consent - Insurance Claim Settlement - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 - The judgment discusses the free consent given by the complainant to the settlement of the claim for Rs. 65,87,847 and analyzes the provisions of the Indian Contract Act related to coercion, undue influence, fraud, and misrepresentation. The court concludes that the complainant voluntarily accepted the settlement amount and is estopped from claiming any further amount.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant obtained insurance policies for its factory premises and stocks. After a fire, the Insurance Company settled the claim for Rs. 65,40,926, which the complainant accepted. Subsequently, the complainant sought further compensation, alleging financial difficulties and coercion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant voluntarily accepted the settlement amount and failed to prove coercion, undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation. The court held that the complainant is estopped from claiming any further amount.
Issues: Whether the consent given by the complainant to the settlement of the claim was free or not.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the provisions of the Indian Contract Act related to free consent and concluded that the complainant voluntarily accepted the settlement amount, and there was no evidence of coercion, undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and the complainant was estopped from claiming any further amount from the Insurance Company.
ORDER
V.K. Jain, (P.M) - The complainant obtained two insurance policies, one insuring its factory premises and the machinery installed therein and the other insuring the stocks including raw material and finished goods stored in the said factory premises. A fire broke out in the factory premises of the complainant on 19.5.2008. On intimation being given to the Insurance Company, a preliminary Surveyor was appointed to estimate the loss suffered by him. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Director of the complainant company, who was looking after its day-to-day affairs, estimated the loss at Rs. 1,00,00,000 in the information provided to the said preliminary Surveyor. Thereafter, another Surveyor, M/s. Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed by the Insurance Company, who assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs. 65,40,926. The aforesaid figure had been worked out after deducting the requisite depreciation. The complainant, however, lodged claim of Rs. 1,71,89,502 comprising Rs. 1,64,36,701 for the damage to the plant and machinery, Rs. 2,58,047 on account of damage to the stock and Rs. 4,94,754 on account of damage to the building and electric installations.
2. Vide letter dated 17.11.2008, the Insurance Company informed the complainant that the claim had been approved for payment of Rs. 65,87,847 subject inter alia to submission of an unqualified and unconditional discharge in full and final payment of the claims. According' to the complainant since it was in d ire need of the money to start the business and the wedding of the daughter of its Managing Director was also fixed for 11.12.2008, it submitted a full and final receipt to the Insurance Company and a cheque for Rs. 65,40,926 was thereupon issued to it. After en-cashing the aforesaid cheque the complainant served a legal notice dated 23.12.2008 upon the Insurance Company, seeking balance compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,00,000 along with legal expenses. The said demand having not been complied the complainant company is before this Commission seeking payment amounting to Rs. 1,56,11,539 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of fire till the date of payment. This includes Rs. 50,00,000 towards compensation for the mental agony.
3. The complaint has been contested by the Insurance Company primarily on tire ground that having settled the claim for Rs. 65,40,926 in full and final settlement of its claim the complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint. On merits, it is alleged that the surveyor had rightly assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs. 65,40,926 after making requisite deduction on account of depreciation.
4. Vide letter dated 16.10.2008 the complainant wrote to the Insurance Company that its surveyor was asking for their consent for settlement of the claim and, therefore, the Insurance Company should furnish the offer of the claim settlement along with date/time by which payment would be made. This was followed by another letter to the Insurance Company. Vide letter dated 17.11.2008, the Insurance Company informed the complainant that the competent authority had approved the claim for Rs. 65,84,827 subject to its furnishing (i) unqualified and unconditional discharge as full and final settlement of the related claims from the insured, (ii) recovery of reinstatement premium for unexpired portion of the policy, and (iii) other usual claim formalities. The complainant has not placed on record the communication sent by it to the aforesaid letter from the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company has placed on record the handwritten letter dated 24.11.2008 which Shri Ashwani Kumar, Director of the complainant company wrote to the Insurance Company on the letter head of the complainant company. The aforesaid letter was written on 24.11.2008 but submitted to the Insurance Company only on 3.12.2008. Admittedly, the cheque of Rs. 65,40,926 was delivered to the complainant company on the same date. The aforesaid hand written letter,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.