Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
National Insurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Biswadeb Koley and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.1917 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 07/08/2018 in Complaint No. 124/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 12.3.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Varun Singh, Advocate and Mr. Rishabh Rana, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Ved Sharma, Advocate and Mr.Uday Ch. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.3 and 4:Mr. Tessy Varghese, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
A complaint barred by limitation is dismissed unless delay condoned.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 19, 24-A and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 41, 69 and 2(11)] – Insurance claim – Damage to live stock, etc. – Scope – Complaint has taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy from appellant though Bank – Damage to live stock, building, plant by cyclone – Surveyor assured loss at Rs.8,97,284/-Complainant accepted Rs.4,33,872/- in full and final settlement of claim – Discharge voucher executed by complainant – Conduct of complainants in remaining silent for more than two years after executing the discharge voucher clearly indicates that discharge voucher was executed voluntarily – Cause of action to file a complaint against insurer accrued on the date the payment was received by Bank on behalf of complainants – Payment since receive in year 2011, but complaint filed in May 2013, clearly barred by limitation – Thus, impugned order to the extent it is directed against the insurer cannot be sustained, therefore set aside – Therefore consumer complaint against insurance company set aside. (Para 8 to 11)
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER (ORAL)
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The Complainants had taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the Appellant for the period from 22.08.2006 to 21.08.2009 in respect of their plant and machinery as well as in respect of the stock comprising egg and chicken. The policy is stated to have been taken through Respondent Bank of India from which a loan had been taken by the Complainants. There was damage to the live stock as well as to the building shed and plant and machinery of the Complainants, in a cyclone which struck their premises on 25.05.2009. On intimation being given to the insurer, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss to the Complainants. The surveyor assessed the loss to the Complainant at Rs.8,97,284/-. The insurer, however, made its own assessment and based on that, offered only an amount of Rs.4,33,872/- to the Complainants in full and final settlement of their claim. The Complainant executed a discharge voucher in favour of the insurer on 23.02.2011, whereupon the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,33,872/- was paid to the Bank for being credited in the loan account of the Complainants.
2. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank as well as on the part of the insurer in rendering service to them, the Complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint.
3. The Complaint was resisted by the Bank as well as by the insurer. It was inter alia stated in the written version filed by the insurer that the Complainants having accepted payment of Rs.4,33,872/- in full and final settlement of their claim and therefore, were precluded from claiming any additional payment from the insurer.
4. Vide the impugned order dated 07.08.2018, the State Commission has directed as under:
“The complaint case stands allowed on contest against the OPs. OP Nos. 1&2 are debarred from staking further claim in terms of their letter dated 01-02-2013 and release all pledged securities/documents and handover the same to the Complainants within 40 days from today. They shall also pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing unwarranted harassment, stress and agony to the Complainants, i.d., simple interest @ 9% p.a. over this amount shall accrue for the entire period of default. OP No. 3 shall release balance payable amount as narrated hereinabove in favour of the Complainants within 40 days from this day along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the balance claim amount payable to the Complainants from 27-05-2013 till full and final payment is made. Complainants shall also be entitled to litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to be equally paid by the OP Nos. 1&2 and OP No. 3 within the aforesaid period.”
5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the insurer is before this Commission by way of this Appeal.
6. The discharge voucher executed by the Complainants dated 23.02.2011 to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
“REF.: D. V. No.: FORM No.B-17
Date 23/02/2011
Received from National Insurance Company Limited
DO-11 0100
433872
________Regional Office Division Branch the sum of Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two only
Rs.4,33,872/- sd/-
23-2-2011
7. It is not in dispute that the discharge voucher is executed by the Complainants. The case of the Complainants is that since they were in financial difficulties, their loan account had been declared NPR, the Bank was seeking to recover the loan by issuing a notice under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and there was threat of their securities being sold by the Bank in order to recover the loan, they were left with no option but to accept the offer made by the insurer. In other words, the case of the Complainants is that the execution of the discharge voucher by them was not a voluntary act and they were compelled to execute the discharge voucher on account of their being in financial stress at that time including threat from the Bank to enforce the loan by selling their securities.
8. Thus,
