Order-15.
Date-15/12/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Amit Kumar Chirawalaby filing this complaint has submitted that complainant has been carrying on business of manufacturing various plastic containers having factory at Bonda Industrial Area, NarengiChandrapur Road, Guwahati-781026 and for protecting its manufacturing unit from various perils including Fire took two Insurance Policies namely Standard Fire and Special Perils Policies being No. 311200/11/2013/461 dated 27.12.2012 and 311200/11/2013/462 dated 27.12.2012 for the period from 27.12.2012 to midnight of 26.12.2013 from the op no.2.
During the validity of the said two policies a Fire broke out at the factory of the complainant at Bonda Industrial Area, NarengiChandrapur Road, Guwahati on 03.02.2013 at about 3.00 a.m. to 03.15 a.m. causing damage of Machine Nos.2 and 3 severally along with other appliances/accessories and stocks kept thereon.
Complainant immediately informed the Regional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Guwahati, Assam and also local police station by a letter dated 03.02.2013 and complainant also obtained a police report from the local police station under Guwahati City Police dated 08.02.2013.By a letter dated 30.04.2013 North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. informed the ops that they have ‘no objection’ if the claim amount is paid directly to the complainant.
Thereafter complainant submitted claim form on 06.02.2013 to the op nos. 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs. 5,55,345/- being the estimate loss on account of Fire.Ops thereafter engaged one MoulinathSarma, Surveyor of Guwahati to assess the quantum of loss and at the request of the Surveyor, complainant submitted 16 Nos. of documents to him to assess the loss and complainant also requested the said Surveyor to provide the survey report.
During the time of processing the claim certain deliberations came out from the e-mails exchanged by and between the ops, complainant, Surveyor and the manufacturer of the damaged machine and those were of dated 02.05.2013, 03.05.2013, 06.05.2013, 07.05.2013, 08.05.2013, 09.05.2013, 12.05.2013, 14.05.2013 and 31.05.2013.
During the last week of April, 2013 to first week of May, 2013 various meeting were held at the office of the ops regarding settlement claim of the complainant when the ops clearly made the complainant to understand strongly that in respect of Policy. 311200/11/2013/461 Claim No. 310011/11/2013/030042 they are going to settle the claim for Rs. 2,51,000/- only and in respect of Policy Nos. 311200/11/2013/462, Claim No.310011/11/2013/030043 for Rs. 74,400/- only that is total of Rs. 3,25,400/- instead of Rs. 5,55,345/- and if the complainant does not accept a sum of Rs. 3,25,400/- and sign the discharge voucher, claim file of the complainant will be closed.
Under compelling circumstances and due to heavy loss in the business of the complainant, complainant compelled to sign the discharge voucher under the dictation of ops under coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation and ops after obtaining the discharge voucher on coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation forwarded the alleged claim amount of Rs.3,25,400/- only to the Bank of the complainant through RTGS on 10.06.2013.
Thereafter complainant immediately by a letter dated 12.06.2013 ventilated its grievances and put it on record strongly that the alleged payment of claim to the tune of Rs. 3,25,400/- may please be treated as part payment against the claim of Rs. 5,55,345/-.
Thereafter complainant by a letter dated 12.07.2013 vehemently put on record that the payment received is still being treated as part payment on the basis of the documents submitted as per policy condition.Complainant further requested to arrange to disburse the balance amount along with accrued interest within 15 days.
But op did not consider the case of the complainant and complainant requested the ops to provide the copy of survey report to find out the clue of the surveyor for less assessment. Thereafter by a letter dated 30.09.2013 complainant further contended that ops are kind enough to make the payment of Rs. 2,51,000/- + Rs. 74,000/- on the request to treat the same as on account payment to regularize the incurred losses but the difference of claim amount are so high which cannot be left apart and accordingly complainant requested to provide a copy of survey report and also by a letter dated 20.07.2014 complainant further requested the ops to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,29,945/- along with interest at the rate of 10 percent p.a. from the date of lodging of the claim till date within 30 days in default necessary legal action shall be taken.
But ops could not be able to explain under what circumstances they have settled the bonafide Fire claim for Rs. 3,25,400/- in full as final settlement and being an insurer and under writer ought to clarify with clarity what amount of claim they are paying to the insured.
Fact remains that ops did not disclose or hand over survey report to the complainant to realise the entire assessment made by the surveyor and keeping the complainant in darken state of affair, ops illegally and arbitrarily forwarded sum of Rs. 3,25,400/- to the banker of the complainant through NEFT/RTGS without the knowledge of the complainant and compelled the complainant to sign the discharge voucher against the will and violation of the complainant and in the above circumstances, for this conduct of the op being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the act and deed of the op nos. 1 & 2, complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum for proper adjudication and relief.
On the other hand op nos. 1 & 2 by filing written version submitted that the entire allegation of the complainant is false and fabricated and the allegation that ops illegally and by misrepresentation managed to procure the signature of the complainant on discharge voucher is completely false but fact remains that after receiving of information as well as claim of the incident and according to the provisions of the Insurance Act, the Surveyor submitted Survey Report and the ops the Insurance Company wanted to settle the claim according to the loss assessed by the Surveyor and informed the same to the complainant and the complainant accepted the settled amount and duly signed the discharge vouchers for settling the claim and also provided the bank details of the complainant to enable payment through RTGS and that email was of dated 07.06.2013 and accordinglythe Insurance Company duly paid the amount to the complainant and as such the Insurance Company neither acted negligently nor was deficient in service and the discharge vouchers were not signed by the complainant under coercion, misrepresentation as alleged but willfully insured did it which is evident from his own E-mail dated 07.06.2013.
Further ops submitted that during exchange of emails the Surveyor clearly stated the reasons of their consideration and assessment of loss which is accepted by the ops. But the complainant tried to forward the emails from the supplier of the machine M/s. T.C. Maschinen who cannot be regarded as an expert to comment on the condition of the machine on the other hand the surveyor is an expert to assess the actual loss suffered by the complainant.
It is specifically mentioned that Rs. 3,25,400/- had already been transmitted as per acceptance of the complainant and on the basis of that complainant willingly signed the discharge voucher and as such the Insurance Company closed the claim file and ops by filing written version denied all other allegations and it is specifically mentioned that only for the purpose of grabbing more money, this case is filed by making some false assertion though there is no ground for this complaint for which this complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On proper evaluation of the complaint and written version and also the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and further considering the copy of the policy, it is found that no doubt complainant purchased the said two policies and issuing office was of West Bengal.
Truth is that complainant filed a claim on the ground that the Fire broke out in his manufacturing unit on 03.20.2013. Thereafter ops appointed Surveyor, Surveyor submitted final survey report on 15.02.2013. After that the discussion was held in between the parties which is admitted by the ops andcomplainant from the letter of the complainant’s e-mail to the Orient Insurance Company dated 07.06.2013, it is clear that complainant admitted by sending that letter to the effect .This refers the discussion had with you, you are kindly requested to settle our claim as per the discharge voucher given to you duly signed.along with the details of our bank account as follows. .Bank- Bank of India, Branch- Beliaghata Branch, A/C No.402220110000133 and IFSC Code- BKID0004022..
If we consider the letter of the complainant sent by e-mail to the op on 07.06.2013, it is clear that after discussing the matter with the op, complainant was satisfied about the settlement of claim as per discharge voucher and complainant admitted it by the e-mail letter that he requested the op to settle the claim as per discharge voucher and he signed the said discharge voucher and requested the op to release that amount and also sent his bank details. This letter itself proves that there was no question of any practicing fraud, mis-representation, coercion or any sort of other act done by the op. But this letter of the complainant proves that complainant willingly talked with the op, discussed of the claim matter and thereafter settlement was made in presence of the complainant and complainant accepted it and requested the op to release the claim as per discharge voucher and complainant willfully signed the said discharge voucher and that was admitted by him by this letter and admitted position is that as per said settlement and request of the complainant, when complainant accepted the amount that finally i.e. Rs. 3,25,400/- againstRs. 5,55,345/- the total claim, op transmitted that amount of Rs. 3,25,400/- to the account of the complainant which was supplied by the complainant to op by e-mail.
Truth is that complainant has received that amount and not only that complainant accepted that final settled amount and he requested the op by that e-mail to release that amount and he signed the discharge voucher willingly and he requested to release the said amount and also he requested the op to transmit the amount in his bank address that was given by him and it was reported by the complainant to the op by that e-mail and from that e-mail it is clear that complainant being satisfied about the settlement of the claim, about the settled amount, signed the discharge voucher and thereafter by that letter requested to release that amount and transmit the same at his bank details that means complainant knowing fully well of the settlement amount being satisfied about the settlement amount and he signed the discharge voucher and thereafter supplied the bank details with a request to transmit the said amount to his account when that is the fact, then it is clear that the entire allegation of the complainant is false and fabricated. But after getting that amount as a business man, that when he discussed the same with some unscrupulous brain who supplied some instructions and thereafter he filed this complaint making false allegations against the op that the signature of the complainant was collected by the op by coercion, misrepresentation and by fraud invariably by taking help of some unscrupulous friends.
Fact remains that principle of estapple is applicable in this case because complainant himself sent letter by e-mail dated 07.06.2013 and by that letter the conduct of the complainant is clear that he was satisfied about settled amount and about the discharge voucher amount and being satisfied he accepted it and signed it willfully without any coercion, misrepresentation, fraud as allegedly practiced by the ops. But in the present complaint, the allegation of the complainant against the op is false and fabricated and at the same time it is proved that the entire settlement amount was accepted by the complainant and complainant against that requested for release of the same and he willingly signed the voucher and sent bank details.
So for that act of the complainant, complainant is estopped to challenge the final settlement of claim as made in between the parties of this case. At the same time the entire settlement was made and amount was finally settled by the op not only as per report of the Surveyor but also it was accepted by the complainant and thereafter discharge voucher was issued and complainant accepted willfully.
Section 31 of the Evidence Act provides that it is well known that in cases by efforts if there is representation and consequently on admission of existence of fact if such admission is acted upon by the person, it is made a maker of admission subsequently cannot be permitted to show that admission he made was false and in the present case the maker of that letter is complainant and he accepted and consequently admitted the existence of the fact of settlement of the claim and complainant himself suomoto reported the op to accept the voucher which is signed by him and to release the settlement amount against his bank details which is given by him in the said letter.
So, applying the provision of Section 115 of the Evidence Act, we are confirmed that maker of the admission by the letter is the complainant cannot be permitted to show that the said letter or admission is false, not only that in the present case, it is found that complainant has not denied the existence of letter or sending of such E-mail and on the basis of which he admitted his own act for accepting the settlement amount and signing of voucher. At the same time as per juegement reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1697 Sitaram - Vs – Santoru Prasad, Hon’ble Supreme Court has already decided admission of document means admission of fact contained in the document. In view of the above findings and materials and also relying upon the ruling of the Supreme Court, we are convinced to hold that doctroine of esstopeltakes up a position which is consistent with admission which he has previously made and in the present case the very letter comes into plea on and from that date that is on and from 07.06.2013.
So in the present case even after admission complainant is no doubtestopped to challenge his own admission but complainant has changed his position without denying the existence of such letter and the fact that he signed the said discharge voucher knowing fully well and admitting the claim and as per his own will he accepted it and supplied the bank details etc.
In view of the above findings we are convinced to hold that in the present case, complainant has miserably failed to prove any sort of overact on the part of the op and also failed to prove any deficiency or negligence on the part of the op and also has failed to prove that op managed to procure signature in the said document by false representation, misrepresentation, fraud or otherwise and when that is the fact, then we find that there is no case of the complainant. But the entire complaint was initiated by unscrupulously with some false and fabricated and vexatious story for the purpose of grabbing more money and that has become a practice of the business man (consumer) in so many cases like this case and it is the glaring instance before this Forum in respect of the conduct of the business consumer. Truth is that there was no ground to file this complaint. But only to harass the op and to grab more money, this complaint is filed and ultimately it is found that the entire complaint is full of vexatious allegation against the op and for which this complaint fails with penal cost.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed with penal cost of Rs. 10,000/- for filing vexatious complaint against the ops. Complainant is directed to deposit the said penal cost within one month from the date of this order, failing which 9 percent interest p.a. shall be assessed over the same till full payment of the same to this Forum and if it is not paid within time, in that case legal proceeding u/s 25 read with Section-27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against the complainant for relalisethe said amount.
