Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President
Patanjali Foods Ltd. – Complainant
versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case Nos.165 and 166 of 2003
Decided on 1.1.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Payment of Interest – After signing of Discharge Vouchers - Entitlement of - In the present case as would be evident from the findings recorded hereinafter, delay was being alleged on the part of the Insurance Company in finalizing the matter. Secondly, the contention of being forced into compulsive circumstances for issuing the discharge vouchers during the pendency of this complaint and thirdly financial duress has also been argued. In the opinion of this Commission none of these pleas are available to the complainant on the facts of the present case as would be evident from the reasons indicated hereinunder – The discharge voucher dated 04.02.2004 in respect of the first claim is also admitted and so far as the discharge voucher in respect of the second claim is concerned the same is also admitted having been issued on 22.01.2004 which is on record - The plea of financial distress or economic duress also does not apepal to reason as “on account” advance payments of Rs. 3 crore 40 lacs had been made by Insurance Company to the complainant in 2001-2002 as noted hereinabove. The discharge vouchers were submitted during the pendency of the complaint and no amendment has been sought in the complaint for making allegations or substantiating it with any proof regarding exercise of undue influence by the Insurance Company. The only attempt which has been made in this regard by the complainant is through the averments contained in their evidence affidavit quoted hereinabove which has been clearly denied in the evidence affidavit of the opposite party. Thus, there is nothing on record to establish coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence on the part of the Insurance Company being exercised for obtaining the discharge vouchers. The discharge vouchers appear to have been signed voluntarily and it is only after five days thereafter and having received the amount that the protest was registered on 11.02.2004. This in the opinion of the Commission was a complete after-thought which could not be substantiated by any proof or material on record. In fact the complainant had entered into a negotiated bargain after having accepted the amounts paid in advance as referred to hereinabove. The bargain was finalized on the basis of the survey reports and was not objected to at that point of time. The filing of the complaint is also with regard to balance of the payment which was paid on 29.01.2004 and, therefore, the only dispute raised was with regard to payment of interest. This also stood concluded with the issuance of the discharge vouchers and was a final settlement during the pendency of this complaint. The discharge vouchers having been signed and the amount having been finally collected against full and final settlement of the claim, therefore, cannot be said to be either a deliberate delay or an act amounting to undue influence on the part of the insurance company or even otherwise calls for award of interest on the afore-said amounts. The entire circumstances taken as a whole, raises a preponderance of probability of the dispute being raised as an afterthought to reopen the voluntary bargain that had been finalized - The complaints were filed in 2003. The discharge vouchers were signed and tendered on 22.01.2004 and 04.02.2004. This subsequent act of discharge, therefore, disentitles the claimants for any interest as claimed. There is, therefore, neither any proof or evidence of undue influence nor there is any element of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Insurance Company – Petitions dismissed. [Paras 36 to 41].
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
These two original petitions have been instituted alleging deficiency on the part of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ld., in not having satisfied the entire claim of the complainant regarding losses suffered in a fire that occurred in the night of 24/25.12.2000. It is the contention of the claimants that the Insurance Company proceeded to get the incident surveyed and then obtained assessments luxuriously thereby delaying the process of indemnifying the loss. The ad-hoc method and the delay resulted in prolonged harassment by the Insurance Company as a consequence whereof the present complaints have been filed.
2. The complaints were instituted originally by M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., which company underwent insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai. A resolution plan was drawn up and the company was taken over by M/s Patanjali Foods Limited who were, under the orders of this Commission, substituted in place of the original complainants. When the matter previously commenced for consideration an Order was passed on 14.08.2023 to the following effect:—
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find from the pleadings that prima facie the claims made by the complainant stood satisfied to the extent for the payments that were tendered by the insurance company but the complaint was being continued on account of certain alleged shortcomings in the payments as well as relief in respect of delayed payment of the insured amount along with interest.
The case took a peculiar turn in between when M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited was facing some investigation along with the Insurance Company in respect of this transaction on a complaint by a private person alleging an under hand dealing in respect of the claim of insured amount.
Learned counsel for the insurance company however disputes this and also said that to their knowledge nothing progressed before the Central Bureau of Investigation. But they would like to confirm their information as to whether there has been a closure report or an FIR or even a charge sheet or any further developments in respect of the allegations of the complaint otherwise made and has been referred to in the pleadings.
It is then been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant-company was taken over by M/s. Patanjali foods Ltd., who has now been entered in the array of parties that has been allowed by this Commission.
It is urged that in the proceedings adopted during the takeover, there is a possibility of some arrangement/ explanation having been mentioned in respect of this insurance transaction amount and therefore they would like to seek final instructions in this regard so as to assist this Commission further in the matter.
We think it appropriate to adjourn the case for a future date in order to enable the learned counsel for the parties to ascertain the aforesaid fact and confirm their instructions to enable this Commission to proceed further.
List on 25.10.2023.
3. The reason for passing of the said Order was that there was some allegations regarding the transaction of indemnification under some cloud. The complaint was before the Central Bureau of Investigation and hence it was thought proper to obtain instructions in this regard. The case was listed on 25.10.2023 and 05.12.2023 whereafter an Order was passed on 08.12.2023 to the following effect:—
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is a matter of the year 2003.
In view of what had transpired on the previous occasions and had been indicated in the orders dated 14.08.2023 and 25.10.2023, let an affidavit be filed in order to bring on record as to whether any criminal proceedings or otherwise are pending in any Court of law with regard to the subject matter in the complaints.
The resolution plan under the orders of NCLT, which permitted the present complainant to take over M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., may also be placed in a sealed cover as requested by the
Discharge vouchers Discharge vouchers were signed and tendered on 22.01.2004 and 04.02.2004. This subsequent act of discharge, therefore, disentitles the claimants for any interest as claimed.
(1) The Surveyor’s Report Threshold: Once a surveyor submits a final report and the insurer accepts it, any further delay in disbursing the funds constitutes a deficiency. The insurer cannot hold ont....
The insurance company’s coercive practices in settling claims amount to deficiency in service under consumer law.
Insured is entitled to interest at 9% for delays beyond stipulated time frames following an accepted insurance claim settlement.
(1) Survey Report - The Survey Report is an important document and cannot be ignored while settling claims.(2) Coercive practice - Complainant has not issued the Discharge Voucher of his own free wil....
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....
The judgment clarified compensation assessment principles in insurance claims, including salvage deductions and interest for delays.
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
