Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
M/s. Time Technoplast Limited Company – Complainant
versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. – Opp. Parties
OP No. 21 of 2004 With IA No. 4567 of 2025 (Waiver of Cost)
Decided on 27.11.2025

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Amit Kumar Singh and Ms. Rokosiend Meyase, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 onto the “ascertained sum” without a valid explanation.
(2) Discharge Vouchers & Duress: Following the precedents of Ajmer Singh Cotton Mills and Dicitex Furnishing, the Commission reiterated that once a discharge voucher is signed without protest, the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish “undue influence, fraud, or coercion” through clinching evidence.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act – Insurance Claim – Fire Loss – Full and Final Settlement – Discharge Voucher – Interest for Delay – The complainant’s manufacturing unit was destroyed by fire in 1999 – The insurer paid an ad-hoc sum of Rs.5.20 Crores in 2000 and a final sum of Rs.5.16 Crores in 2003 upon the signing of discharge vouchers – Ten months later, the complainant alleged the vouchers were signed under duress and claimed a balance principal of Rs.1.05 Crores plus Rs.5.53 Crores in interest – NCDRC held that in the absence of evidence of coercion or immediate protest, the discharge vouchers constituted a valid final settlement, and the claim for the balance principal was rejected – Commission found a deficiency in service regarding the 14-month delay between the surveyor’s final report (February 2002) and the final payment (April 2003) – Commission awarded 6% simple interest for this specific period of delay – Complaint partly allowed.

ORDER :

A.P. Sahi, President—This complaint which is an original petition has been filed complaining deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company by not indemnifying the full claim as covered under the policy and for not making the payment of interest for the delay in respect of the payments that were made by it against the claim.

2. The petitioner- company is in the business of Plastic Moulded furniture under the name and style of “Regal” that was established way back in 1997-98. One of its factories was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, the opposite party no. 1 herein and the manufacturing plant unfortunately was engulfed in a fire that broke on 02.12.1999. The same resulted in a total loss and accordingly the complainant dispatched a letter intimating about the said incident to the Insurance Company. There is no dispute about the fire having taken place or the loss suffered. The survey was carried out and a survey report was tendered. The Insurance Company on being satisfied with the loss initially released a sum of Rs.5,20,00,000/- on 10.04.2000 as a part release of the amount as against the total coverage of Rs.11,60,00,000/-. There were three policies in all and that the interim payment was made subject to final survey reports being tendered.

3. The procedure thereafter followed and other averments in the complaint being not relevant to the controversy are not being narrated, but the fact remains that with the part payment, the complainant felt aggrieved and requested the Insurance Company to finalise the claim with a request to the surveyor to tender his final report. The policy was on a reinstatement basis, but from the facts on record it remains undisputed that in spite of the release of an adhoc payment of Rs.5,20,00,000/- on 10.04.2000, the complainant- company did not restore the activities of the manufacturing unit. The complainants claim delay on the part of the surveyor as well as the Insurance Company, but at the same time, the communication on record dated 04.04.2001, indicates that the complainants themselves had intimated that they were not in a position to replace the machines as they had no hope for getting any further financial assistance from any corner.

4. The surveyor submitted the report and the Insurance Company proceeded to finalise the claim between 21.04.2003 and 24.04.2003, whereby the payments were computed and a sum of Rs.5,16,91,955/- was received by the complainant in addition to the amount already released on adhoc basis as noted above. Simultaneously the complainant also signed the discharge vouchers.

5. It is long thereafter that the complainants raised their demand on 02.01.2004 for an additional amount of Rs.6,58,73,605/-. It was urged through the said letter that the complainants were entitled to receive Rs.11,42,58,616/- as against the total sum insured of Rs.11,60,00,000/-. However they described the payments received by them on 10.04.2000 and 21/24.04.2003 as part payments to the tune of Rs.10,36,91,955/-. It was therefore urged by the complainants that they were still entitled to receive the balance of Rs.1,05,66,661/- and over and above they claimed interest payable from 31.12.2003 onwards to the tune of Rs.5,53,06,944/- which amounted to an additional claim of Rs.6,58,73,605/-.

6. The complainant in the letter alleged that as they had made several representations and the payment received was only adhoc, no reason was given as to the payment of the reduced amount and the same had been done without any notice or opportunity. In paragraph 8 of the said letter the allegation was that when the company had raised the issue of payment of interest they had been threatened that the company would be barred from raising any future claims.

7. This letter was followed by a reminder on 21.01.2004 and having failed to get any response the present complaint was filed on 31.03.2004. The reliefs prayed for in the complaint are as follows:—

“i) That the Hon’bte C