Insurer's insistence on an unconditional discharge voucher for partial payment amounts to 'compulsive circumstance,' not a bar to further claims: NCDRC - 2025-08-19

NCDRC Upholds Insurer’s Repudiation, Cites Failure to Prove Existence of Stock Despite Criticizing 'Discharge Voucher' Practice

New Delhi – The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), in a significant order, has dismissed a Rs. 97.47 lakh claim by Lexportex (India) Pvt. Ltd. against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., holding that the company failed to substantiate the existence of a majority of its claimed stock lost in a fire. The bench, comprising President Justice A. P. Sahi and Member Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya , affirmed the surveyor's findings, which questioned the transport and storage of the goods in question.

However, the Commission strongly observed that an insured party is not barred from agitating a claim even after signing a "full and final" discharge voucher if it was executed under "compulsive circumstances," such as an insurer withholding an admitted payment pending an unconditional acceptance.

Background of the Dispute

The case originates from two fire incidents in November 2007 at the office and godown of Lexportex (India) Pvt. Ltd., a Kolkata-based manufacturer. The company filed an insurance claim for Rs. 1.19 crore for the loss of stock, which included imported Seedlac, locally procured Shellac, and other chemicals.

The insurer, Bajaj Allianz, appointed Mr. Dilip Kumar Saha as the surveyor. Based on his report submitted in January 2009, the insurer approved a payment of only Rs. 22.17 lakh, covering the loss of chemicals like Aleuritic Acid, but repudiated the larger claim for Seedlac and Shellac, which constituted over 80% of the total loss. The insurer contended that the complainant failed to prove that these materials were actually present in the godown at the time of the fire.

Key Arguments Presented

Lexportex (The Complainant):

* Coercion and Duress: Argued that the discharge voucher for Rs. 22.17 lakh was signed under financial duress, as the insurer made the payment conditional upon signing an unconditional settlement.

* Invalid Survey Report: Claimed the survey report was a nullity because the surveyor illegally delegated his duties to an unlicensed associate, Mr. Deepanjan Saha, in violation of the Insurance Act and IRDAI regulations.

* Flawed Evidence Collection: Contended that the debris sample, which tested negative for Seedlac and Shellac, was collected nearly a year after the fire and behind their back, rendering the test report unreliable.

* Sufficient Proof Provided: Asserted that all necessary documents, including import records, purchase invoices, and stock statements, were provided to the surveyor.

Bajaj Allianz (The Insurer):

* Final Settlement: Maintained that the unconditional discharge voucher, signed and encashed by the complainant, constituted a full and final settlement, legally barring any further claims.

* Lack of Substantiation: Relied heavily on the surveyor’s report, which found significant discrepancies in transport documents, an absence of credible evidence proving the goods were moved to the affected godown, and suspicious last-minute purchases.

* Non-Cooperation: The surveyor noted that the complainant was not fully cooperative, particularly in not disclosing the shifting of an office computer post-fire and initially refusing to provide data from it.

NCDRC's Legal Analysis and Findings

The Commission meticulously dissected the case, addressing two primary legal questions: the validity of the discharge voucher and the sanctity of the surveyor's report.

On the Discharge Voucher: The NCDRC ruled in favor of the complainant on this point, stating that the practice of withholding an admitted amount until an unconditional voucher is signed creates a "compulsive circumstance." The bench observed:

"We are of the considered opinion that mere signing of such discharge voucher, that too merely for a 20% of the claim amount, cannot and should not come in the way of the complainant in questioning the correctness of the insurer’s action..."

The Commission cited Supreme Court precedents like National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. , noting that a discharge given under economic duress does not result in a valid "accord and satisfaction." It also highlighted a 2015 IRDAI circular deprecating this practice by insurers.

On the Surveyor's Report and Merits of the Claim: Despite finding the complaint maintainable, the NCDRC upheld the surveyor's conclusions on the merits of the claim.

* Onus of Proof: The Commission reiterated the settled legal principle that the onus to prove the existence and value of the lost goods at the insured premises lies with the insured.

* Credibility of Evidence: The surveyor had raised valid doubts that the complainant failed to adequately address. These included:

* Discrepancies in the dates and serial numbers of transport challans for the imported Seedlac.

* The absence of supporting documents like weighment slips or port charge receipts.

* A complete lack of transport documents for the locally procured Shellac, which was allegedly sourced just days before the fire.

* The complainant's failure to provide contemporaneous data from its accounting software despite the office computer being unaffected by the fire.

The Commission concluded that stand-alone stock statements were insufficient without credible, contemporaneous evidence of the goods' transit to and presence at the specific godown.

"The surveyor, in our opinion, is absolutely justified in concluding that there is no credible material to conclude that the goods were transported to and were stored in affected godown on the date of incident."

Final Verdict

Finding no deficiency in the service provided by the insurer or any fault in the surveyor's detailed investigation, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint. The ruling underscores the critical importance for businesses to maintain meticulous and verifiable records, not only of purchases but also of the specific movement and location of inventory, to successfully substantiate an insurance claim.