BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.760 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C. NO.117 OF 2007, DISTRICT FORUM ANANTHAPUR
Between:
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Kovur Complex,
1st Floor, Near Saptagiri Circle
Anantapur
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
Kalyani Medical Agencies,
rep. by its Managing Partner
D.Venkateswarlu,
S/o D.Laxminarayana D.No.12/323
80 feet Road, Sainagar, Anantapur
Respondent/complainant
F.A.No.762 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C. NO.116 OF 2007
Between:
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Kovur Complex,
1st Floor, Near Saptagiri Circle
Anantapur
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
Kalyani Medical Agencies,
rep. by its Managing Partner
D.Venkateswarlu,
S/o D.Laxminarayana D.No.12/323
80 feet Road, Sainagar, Anantapur
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri E.Venugopal Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K.Maheswara Rao
F.A.No.911 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C. NO.110 OF 2007
Between:
Kalyani Medical Agencies,
rep. by its Managing Partner
D.Venkateswarlu,
S/o D.Laxminarayana D.No.12/323
80 feet Road, Sainagar, Anantapur
Appellant/complainant
A N D
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Kovur Complex,
1st Floor, Near Saptagiri Circle
Anantapur
Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K.Maheswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri E.Venugopal Reddy
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite party is the appellant in the appeals F.A.No.760 and 762 of 2010 and the complainant is the appellant in F.A.No.911 of 2010. The facts and circumstances of all the cases are identical and as such they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint. F.A.No.760 of 2010 is taken as the lead case.
2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant insured the medicines, furniture and other items with the opposite party under the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy vide policy No.051004/48/05/00451 and the validity period of the policy is from 01-09-2005 to 31-08-2006. The medicines worth of `24,00,000/- were insured under fire and other allied perils head apart from covering the other losses. In the intervening night of 11/12/.05.2006 between 1.00 A.M. and 2.00 A.M. there was short circuit due to which fire accident occurred. The Managing Partner of the complainant firm rushed to the shop and by the time the entire medicine stock, fridge and furniture and the building were totally damaged. The total stock worth of `17,93,865/- and furniture worth of `1,89,400/- which comes to a total of `19,83,265/- was damaged. After the fire accident, the complainant submitted claim with the opposite party for reimbursement of the value of the medicines, which were damaged in the fire accident worth `19,83,265/-. After receipt of the claim, the opposite party appointed surveyors.
3. On 23-03-2007 the opposite party paid an amount of Rs.13,63,874/- to the complainant. The normal period for settlement of the claim by the opposite party is 3 months and beyond that it amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant firm is entitled for interest @ 24% p.a. on `13,63,874/- from the date of fire accident till the date of payment. Hence, the complainant in C.C.No.110/2007 (FA No.911 of 2010) prayed the District Forum to direct the opposite party to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on `13,63,874/- from the date of fire accident till the date of payment. In C.C.116/2007 (F.A.No.762 of 2010) relief was sought for payment of `4,29,991/- towards balance of claim amount for the loss of medicine (stock in trade) sustained by the complainant firm in the fire accident and interest @ 24% p.a., compensation and costs. In C.C.No.117/2007 (F.A.No.760 of 2010) relief sought for payment of `1,89,400/- towards loss of furniture that was said to be sustained by the complainant in fire accident with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident, together with compensation and costs.
4. The opposite party filed counter in all the complaints and contended that the claim has already been settled as this opposite party has paid a sum of `13,63,874/- to the complainant and his Banker M/s ING Vysya Bank Ltd., by way of cheque in full and final settlement of the claim. When the claim has been settled in full and final settlement, no consumer dispute survives and the complaint itself is not maintainable and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant and his Banker did not make any protest while receiving the amount of `13,63,874/- and the opposite party is not liable to pay any further amount. The complainant and his Banker have submitted the Discharge Voucher for a sum of `13,63,874/- towards full and final settlement and that the complainant and his Banker have given their unconditional consent for the same and after receiving the said Discharge Voucher, the opposite party has released the payment and the opposite party has not used any coercive measures or undue influence for obtaining the consent of the complainant. The insurance company is liable in respect of the stocks of medicines only and there is no coverage towards furniture, fixtures and fittings and also towards computers and as such all the complaints are liable to be dismissed.
5. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and the documents Exs.A1 to A17.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party insurance company has filed the appeals F.A.No.760 of 2010, F.A.No.762 of 2010 and the complainant has filed the appeal F.A.911 of 2010
7. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that the policy does not cover the risk of the furniture and fittings and that the complainant had agreed and received the amount of `13,63,874/- without any protest or objection and issued discharge voucher acknowledging receipt of the amount in full and final satisfaction. The complainant and its banker received the amount by encashing the cheque issued by the opposite party. It contended on behalf of the complainant that the insurance company caused abnormal delay in settling the claim and as such it is entitled to the entire claim amount.
8. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the complainant is entitled to the balance claim after receiving the amount towards full and final settlement of its claim?
2) To what relief?
9. POINT NO.1 The complainant firm obtained insurance policy for the period from 1.9.2005 to 31.8.2006 for a sum of `24 lakhs. It is not disputed that on the intervening night of 11/12.5.2006 there was short circuit in the medical agencies as a result of which certain property of the complainant firm was damaged. On 12.5.2006 the complainant firm has lodged claim with the opposite party for an amount of `19,83,265/- which includes loss towards furniture worth of `1,89,400/-. The opposite party insurance company appointed surveyor who inspected the premises and submitted their report. The complainant firm had received an amount of `13,63,874/- on 23.3.2007 and issued discharge voucher along with its banker in full and final satisfaction of its claim.
10. It is contended on behalf of the complainant firm that the opposite party promised the complainant firm that the amount paid `13,63,874/- is not the entire amount of the claim and the balance amount would be paid later. The complainant firm got issued notice to the opposite party insurance company claiming the amount of `2,82,776/- with interest and `1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and `1,00,000/- towards damages and costs.
11. At the outset we may clarify that it is settled legal position that no company or firm can claim any amount towards compensation for mental agony. A firm or company cannot be expected to suffer mental tension as an individual and it is interesting to see that the complainant firm claimed the amount of `1,00,000/- towards compensation on the premise of suffering mental tension.
12. The complainant firm had received the amount of `13,63,874/- dated 23.3.2007 and along with its banker issued discharge voucher in full and final satisfaction of the claim. After receipt of the discharge voucher the opposite party has released the amount. It is not the case of the complainant that any coercive measure or undue influence was exercised on it by the opposite party insurance company for obtaining its consent and the complainant has given its consent due to some act of fraud played by the opposite party insurance company. Once the claim was settled and the insured received the amount in full and final settlement of the claim, no further claim can be entertained on behalf of the insured on the premise that it is entitled to the entire amount under the claim.
13. In “AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3027 United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and others”, the Supreme Court held that the complainant can question the settlement of the claim after issuing discharge voucher for final settlement, on the grounds of fraud, coercion misrepresentation etc. The Apex Court held “The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, mis-representation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints”.
14. In the aforementioned circumstances and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant company is not entitled to question the settlement of the claim after receiving amount of `13,63,874/- towards full and final satisfaction of its claim. In the circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any further amount of the claim and as such the appeals F.A.No.760 and 762 of 2010 deserve to be allowed and consequently F.A.No.911 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result the appeals F.A.No.760 and 762 of 2010 are allowed. Consequently the complaint and F.A.No.911 of 2010 are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.23.05.2012
KMK*
