Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1360
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
PAUL DEPARTMENTAL STORE – Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2015
For the Respondents:For Respondent No.1:Mr.Animesh Sinha, Mr.Shubham Budhiraja, Advocates
For Respondent No.2:Mr. S.K.Ray, Ms.Neetika Chaturvedi, Advocates
Voluntary acceptance of a settlement in insurance claims bars further complaints unless fraud or coercion is established.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Settlement of claims - Dismissal of complaint by State Commission upheld due to prior voluntary full settlement by complainant with one insurance company - Full and final settlement reached voluntarily cannot be challenged unless fraud or coercion is proven. (Paras 6, 8, 12, and 11)
(B) Insurance - Multiple policies held by complainant - Acceptance of payment from one insurer constitutes full settlement barring further claims from other insurers unless protest was made. (Paras 2, 4, 5, and 11)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, proprietor of Paul Departmental Store, suffered a loss due to fire and filed a claim with three insurance companies. A full and final settlement was accepted from one insurer, yet claims against others remained unresolved. The State Commission dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.
Findings of Court:
The acceptance of the settlement was found valid and unprotested, affirming the legal principle of estoppel from further claims.
Issues: The main issue was the legitimacy of the full settlement received and whether it barred further complaints to other insurers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that once a settlement is acknowledged without protest, the claim is considered settled, based on prior case law.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of appeal by complainant challenging prior dismissal. (Para 1) |
| 2. challenge to dismissal based on voluntary settlement. (Para 2) |
| 3. facts regarding policies taken and subsequent fire loss. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. conclusion drawn by the court on dismissal of the appeal. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 5. legal principles on settlements and claims. (Para 6 , 8) |
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
This order shall dispose of the present Appeal filed by the complainant challenging the order dated 23.02.2015 of the State Commission on his complaint no. 02/2011, whereby his complaint was dismissed on the ground that the complainant since had voluntarily settled his dispute with the insurance company and had received full settlement of his claim, the complaint was not maintainable.
2. The impugned order has been challenged by the complainant on the ground that disbursement voucher dated 05.02.2010 was received by him from the National Insurance Company and his claim against the United India Insurance Company Limited was still pending and although they had appointed the surveyor and the survey had been done yet they failed to take any decision and, therefore, dismissal of his complaint is illegal and perverse on the part of the State Commission.
3. The brief admitted facts of the case are that complainant is the sole proprietor of Paul Departmental Store and engaged in retail sale of goods involving personal household, readymade garments, hosiery, shoes etc. He took three insurance policies from three different insurance companies. He took Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No. 401308/11/3100000092 dated 06.06.2008 and insured amount of Rs.10.00 lacs with the coverage period from 14.6.2008 to 13.6.2009 against the premium of Rs. 16,500/- for the stocks lying in the departmental store from National Insurance Company. He also obtained another Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from United India Assurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs.30.00 lacs for the period 15.12.2008 to 14.12.2009 and also obtained another Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited for insured amount of Rs.4,11,569/- for building and Rs. 1,64, 628/- for the period 31.05.2008 to 30.05.2009. On the morning of 30.04.2009 at about 7.00 a.m., a fire broke out in his store and his store suffered loss in the fire. He forwarded the claim forms to all the three insurance companies. National Insurance Company appointed M/s Protocol Surveyors and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. who did survey and after completing the investigation, submitted the surveyor report. The National Insurance Company quantified the loss and, thereafter, offered a cheque of Rs.90,64,704/- which was accepted by the complainant. His claim, however, was not assessed by other insurance companies and hence he filed the complaint.
4. The State Commission after perusing all the relevant records, evidences and hearing the arguments of learned counsels, held as under :
“11. We have examined the matter on its merits on the record. Our attention has been drawn to Para No.10 of the complaint, wherein complainant itself admitted that it has accepted the amount of Rs.90,48,204/- from the OPs in this case. The affidavit of Vikram Johar of M/s Protocol Surveyors and Engineers Pvt.Ltd, Protocol House, A-56, Sector-7, Noida is on the record to the effect that physical verification of the articles caused to the stock furniture, fixture and fittings, due to alleged fire was conducted. That he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.92,50,000/- in respect of stock, furniture, fixture and fittings, vide survey report dated 20.10.2009, annexure R-3 is on the record. There is an affidavit by the above surveyor to this effect that he found loss of Rs.92,50,000/- in this case. The report of the surveyor carries weightage and it is strong piece of evidence on the record. Surveyor is appointed under the Insurance Act. The report of the surveyor can be dis
