The complainant who is Respondent No.1 in these Revision Petitions preferred a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum impleading Indian Overseas Bank, Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd. and M/s. Protocol Surveyor & Engineer Pvt. Ltd. as the Opposite Parties in the complaint. The complaint related to a claim on account of the loss suffered by the complainant in a fire which broke out in his manufacturing unit.  The Consumer Complaint was decided by the District Forum vide order dated 10.08.2016, which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

“Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is the owner in respect of S.S. Enterprise and the said enterprise obtained loan from O.P. No.1 and in order to secure loan the properties of the said enterprise was insured with O.P. No.2.  Since there was arbitrary determination of the compensation on the part of O.P. No.2, the complainant had to file this case.  Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that the case is pending since 2011 and with the passing of years and since the complainant was offered by O.P. No.2 to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs towards the compensation and the complainant is now agreeable to receive the said amount and does not want to linger the proceedings of the case any further.

Ld. Lawyer for the O.P.s agreed to such proposal on the part of the complainant and submitted that necessary order may be passed on the submission made by Ld. Lawyer for the complainant.

………….

That the C.C. No.137/2011 is allowed on contest without cost against the O.P. No.2 dismissed on contest against O.P.1 without cost and dismissed exparte as against O.P.3 without cost.  O.P. No.2 is directed to pay Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only to the complainant within 60 days from this day failing which the complainant will get interest @ 8% p.a. till the realization of the said amount.”

2. An appeal was preferred by the complainant against the above referred order of the District Forum.  Vide order dated 12.11.2018, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed as under:

“The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 with a litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- being jointly/severally payable by the above Respondents to the Appellant.  The Respondent No.1 shall pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Appellant and Respondent No.2 shall settle the Appellant’s claim on non-standard basis by paying 75% of the claim amount (after deducting Rs.6,00,000/-, if already paid) and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing unnecessary harassment to the Appellant.  Non-compliance of this order within 40 days henceforth shall make the defaulter(s) liable to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the decretal amount being payable by them from the date of filing of complaint case before the Ld. District Forum till full and final payment is made.  The impugned order stands modified accordingly.”

3. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the Indian Overseas Bank as well as the insurer filed two separate Revision Petitions.

4. It would be seen from a perusal of order passed by the District Forum that due to the complaint having remained pending for almost five years, the learned counsel for the complainant intimated the District Forum that the complainant was now agreeable to receive that amount of Rs.6 lakhs which the insurer had offered as compensation and didn’t want to linger the proceedings any further.  When the statement was made, the learned counsel for the complainant agreed and the order was passed accordingly.

5. The contention of the counsel for the complainant is that, in fact, he never agreed to accept the amount of Rs.6 lakhs offered by the insurer.  He also states that he was the counsel who had represented the complainant before the District Forum and therefore, he has first hand knowledge of the matter.  Admittedly, no application by the complainant was filed before the District Forum stating therein that the counsel representing him before the said District Forum had never stated that the complainant was agreeable to receive the amount of Rs.6 lakhs which insurer had offered to him.   Though the District Forum could not have reviewed and recalled the order passed by it, such an application could certainly have been filed along with affidavit by the counsel in order to place factual situation on the record of the District Forum.

6. I have perused the grounds of appeal filed by the complainant before the State Commission.  In none of the grounds, he has alleged that his counsel had not stated before the District Forum that he was agreeable to receive the amount of Rs.6 lakhs and didn’t want to linger the proceedings any further.  Again, there is no explanation as to why such a ground was not taken in the memorandum of appeal.  It would have been the most relevant ground for the purpose of the said appeal.  The inference, therefore, is that the counsel representing the complainant before the District Forum had actually consented to accept Rs.6 lakhs which the insurer had offered since he didn’t want to linger the proceedings any further.  Having accepted the amount offered by the insurer, the complainant is procured from preferring an appeal before the State Commission against the order passed by the District Forum on the basis of the statement made by his counsel on his behalf. 

7. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that there was no written compromise between the parties as under Order-23 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  That, in my view, would not be necessary considering that the order was based upon the statement made by the learned counsel for the complainant on behalf of the complainant and accepted by the petitioners herein on behalf of their respective clients.

8. The learned counsel for the complainant refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.’, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed and held as under:

“In the case before us it has been made clear that if the insurer is not satisfied with the assessment of the surveyor, he retains the right to settle claim for a different amount.  The insurer after rejecting the assessments of the surveyor and the joint surveyor has accepted the assessment made by the Chartered Accountant.  Therefore, it would not be correct to say that insurer while settling the claim has caused an unnecessary delay of three years.  But once the insurer has reached a settlement he should make the payment at the earliest.  And if further delay is caused by the insurer in making the payment then he should be made liable to pay the interest on the amount settled, as compensation at the current rate of interest till the payment is made, as it has deprived the appellant from using his money for which he is legitimately entitled.”

9. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.

The aforesaid decision in my view, would not apply to the present case since the offer was made by the complainant himself through his counsel in the Court and was accepted by the petitioners herein.

10. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioners in compliance of the order with the District Forum shall be released to them alongwith interest provided that payment in terms of the order of the District Forum as already been made by the insurer to the complainant.

11. The payment in terms of the order of the District Forum was to be made within 60 days from the said order.  If the payment in terms of the order of the District Forum was made and was accepted by the complainant, he would not be entitled to interest.   If the payment in terms of the order of the District Forum has not been made or was not accepted by the complainant, he shall be entitled to interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs.6 lakhs with effect from 60 days from the date of the order of the District Forum till the date on which the payment is made.