Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, P.M and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
EGGRO PAPER MOULDS LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Respondent
Consumer Case No. 475 of 2002.
Decided on : 19-11-2015
Jamshed Bey, Advocate, for the Appellant; Kishore Rawat, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a matter is full and finally settled between the parties, and there is no evidence of fraud or coercion, the Commission has no power to interfere with the settlement.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Dispute over settlement of fire damage claim - The Insurance company rejected the claim for the balance amount, citing full and final settlement and time-barred filing of the complaint - The court found the complaint time-barred and dismissed it - Key legal provisions discussed include the terms and conditions of the policy, full and final settlement, limitation period for filing complaints, and the principle of no interference with settled matters.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint against the insurance company for non-payment of the balance amount of an insurance claim for fire damage. The insurance company rejected the claim, citing full and final settlement and the time-barred nature of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the complaint time-barred and dismissed it, stating that the matter was full and finally settled between the parties, and the Commission had no power to interfere with that settlement.
Issues: The main issues were the rejection of the claim based on full and final settlement, the time-barred nature of the complaint, and the validity of the demands raised by the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was time-barred as the matter was full and finally settled, and the Commission had no power to interfere with the settlement. The court also emphasized that there was no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, threat, or coercion in the settlement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint, stating that the complainant had no grounds to pursue the case, and there shall be no order as to costs.
ORDER
J.M. Malik, (P.M) - M/s. Eggro Paper Moulds Limited, the complainant, obtained various policies in respect of its stock as well as building, plant and machinery, since the year 1990-91, from M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the OP. During the subsistence of the policies, on 08.05.1996, a big fire took place at the factory premises of the complainant at Jagdishpur, District Sultanpur, U.P., for which substantial loss to the stocks as well as to the building, plant and machinery took place for which the complainant lodged a claim of Rs. 139.45 lakhs. The OP paid a total amount of Rs. 49.53 lakhs towards the loss. The balance amount was not paid despite the request made by the complainant vide its letter dated 06.05.1998, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-A. The OP rejected the prayer for payment of the balance of amount of Rs. 89.92 lakhs vide its letter dated 13.07.1998.
2. It is contended that the complainant is entitled to Rs. 166.56 lakhs including interest @ 18% p.a. Consequently, the present Original Petition was filed before this Commission on 11.07.2000, however, the same was registered by the Registry, in the year 2002.
Defence :
3. The OP has listed the following defences in its case. The claim was finally settled on 17.02.1998 after the complainant was given a full and final discharge. The case was filed beyond the expiry of two years, therefore, the same is barred by time. Secondly, the complainant has accepted the amount of Rs. 54,50,892/- in 'full and final' settlement of the claim and executed a discharge voucher in 'full and final' settlement, on 17.02.1998. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP-Insurance Company. The amount so approved by the Insurance company was subject to deductions of the difference of premium which was payable by the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh, on account of deduction of difference of premium by the OP and the copy of the said complaint has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. The said complaint was dismissed in default on 05.08.2002 and the copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. The OP deputed M/s. Mehta & Padamsey Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Parimal R. Shah & Co., Joint Surveyors to survey and assess the loss. The complainant took long time to provide all the necessary information/documents, required by the Surveyors. Copy of the survey report dated 12.11.1996 was placed on record as Annexure R-3. Thereafter, the Divisional Office of the OP sent the said survey report to the Regional Office, for their approval, on 18.12.1996 as there were some discrepancies in the claim, and, therefore, some delay took place. All the other allegations have been denied.
Submissions And Findings :
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The argument urged by the counsel for the complainant has the following five prongs. He vehemently argued that there was a continuous cause of action. He has invited our attention towards the letter dated 06.05.1998 sent by the complainant to the OP. The following paras are relevant :-
"That the negligent and non-cooperative attitude of the Surveyor further aggravated the situation, as they were more interested in getting back their reimbursement first, rather than settling on our claim.
That for many months, we were not in a position to know the fate of the claim, despite our regular persuasion, through our various letters to settle the claims at the earliest.
That the final payment of the claim of the balance amount of Rs. 101.51 lacs was also not made and our settlement of the claim was finalised by paying Rs. 11.59 lacs only, in the month of Feb.'98. Thus, against the total claim of Rs. 139.45 lakhs, an amount of Rs. 49.53 lakhs was only paid by you. Therefore, left with no alternative, we had to accept the final amount of Rs. 11.59 lakhs as the matter had already been delayed and we were in need of the finances".
5. In reply to the above said lette
