Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
M/s. Prabhu Dayal Trilok Chand – Complainant
versus
Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.908 of 2016
Decided on 24.5.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Insurance – Fire Accident - Full and final settlement of the claim - Signing of discharge voucher - Complainant cannot be permitted to reagitate amount received under protest - On merits, it is noted that the Complainant had accepted the amount in full and final settlement of the claim. Admittedly, the Complainant also signed the discharge voucher - Reading of the aforesaid letter shows that there is not even a whisper about pressurizing the Complainant to accept the amount in full and final settlement as alleged by the Complainant. Rather the Opposite Party had clarified the issues raised by the Complainant. In the discharge voucher dated 22nd May, 2014 signed by the Complainant, the Complainant accepted the amount in full and final settlement of the claim. The word “Under Protest” is written at the bottom of the discharge voucher below the signature of the Complainant and the stamp of the Bank. Another discharge voucher filed by the Complainant, is undated and unconditional, signed by the Complainant in full and final settlement of the claim. It is not the case of the Complainant that they did not sign second discharge voucher. After signing the discharge voucher and accepting the amount in full and final settlement, the Complainant is not permitted to raise the plea that the amount was accepted under protest – Complaint dismissed. [Paras 12 to 14]
Result: Compliant dismissed.
ORDER
The present Complaint is filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant is a Partnership Firm running a Dal Mill C-36/4, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110034. The Complainant had obtained two Policies (i) Burglary – Standard Policy bearing No. 271400/48/2014/574 and (ii) Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy bearing No.271400/11/2014/170 valid from 01.05.2013 to 30.04.2014, for insured sum of Rs.2,75,00,000/- each. The Policies covered the risk on stock of raw-material, finished and unfinished goods, stocks in process, material used for packing and manufacturing of dal lying/held in trust or in joint account.
3. The case of the Complainant is that on 11.07.2013 at about 10:30 PM fire broke out in the factory of the Complainant resulting in heavy damage to the stock of finished goods, goods under process, unfinished goods, material used for packing of dal lying in the factory. The Complainant intimated the fire incident to the Opposite Party on telephone followed by an e-mail, dated 12.07.2013. The Opposite Party appointed M/s Ravi Singhal & Associates Pvt. Ltd. as Surveyor to investigate and assess the loss. The Surveyor visited the site of fire on 12.07.2013, 13.07.2013 and 14.07.2013 for inspection and assessment of loss. The Complainant submitted a Claim Form, dated 15.08.2013, with estimate of loss of Rs.2,36,36,830/-. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 28.03.2014, informed the Complainant that the Competent Authority had approved the claim of Rs.1,54,00,000/-. Alongwith the said letter, the Opposite Party also sent a blank discharge voucher for full and final settlement. The Complainant, vide e-mail dated 09.04.2014, protested the manner of settlement of claim and deduction of Rs.21,22,892/- from the assessment of Rs.1,75,22,892/- made by the Surveyor. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 22.05.2014, asked the Complainant to accept the claim in full and final settlement and execute the discharge voucher. Being hard pressed and in dire need of money, the Complainant accepted the claim of Rs.1,54,00,000/- and signed the discharge voucher under protest. The Opposite Party returned the conditional discharge voucher to the Complainant and sought them to send discharge voucher without mentioning their protest. The Complainant, under coercion, signed the unconditional discharge voucher. Thereafter on 27.05.2014, the Opposite Party released an amount of Rs.1,53,76,039/- to the Complainant through RTGS. On 27.05.2014, the Complainant sent a representation raising objections to the Surveyor Report seeking payment of 85 lakhs with interest. In the representation the Complainant stated that the Surveyor deducted an amount of Rs.4,30,408/- towards salvage, whereas there was no salvage as the destroyed commodity was dumped with zero salvage. The Complainant also objected to the deduction of the safe stock from the amount claimed, which should have been deducted from the total stock before the incident of fire i.e. from Rs.2,75,04,37.37/- (as per the Audited Balance Sheet). The Surveyor further deducted Rs.9,93,602/- towards dead stock, though there was no dead stock, as they are fast moving items. On 26.06.2014, the Complainant sent a legal notice on the Opposite Party calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs.85 lakhs with an interest of 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.2,36,36,830/- for delayed partial payment. The Opposite Party, vide reply dated 11.07.2014, justified the settlement of claim in full and final settlement at Rs.1,54,00,000/- and asked the Complainant to withdraw the said notice. Aggrieved by the response of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant invoked Arbitration Clause and appointed Shri D.K. Jain as Arbitrator. Since, Opposite Party did not raise any objection to the appointment of the sole Arbitrator, the Complainant, vide letter dated 02.09.2014, requested the Sole Arbitrator Shri Jain to proceed with the matter and decide the dispute between the parties. The Arbitrator issued t
Amount received under protest - After signing the discharge voucher and accepting the amount in full and final settlement, the Complainant is not permitted to raise the plea that the amount was accep....
A claimant must establish evidence of coercion in accepting insurance settlement to prevail in a deficiency of service claim under the Consumer Protection Act.
The insurance company’s coercive practices in settling claims amount to deficiency in service under consumer law.
Insurance companies must provide substantial proof when denying claims; unjust repudiation leads to enforceable obligations to pay agreed amounts.
The court upheld the view that a discharge voucher does not preclude subsequent claims under the Consumer Protection Act if evidence of coercion is absent.
Delay - A period of 22 months cannot be justified on grounds of seeking of documents and clarifications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
