Delhi

StateCommission

CC/355/2018

M/S SUNPLAST ELECTRONIC PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN DUGGAL

14 May 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                                    Date of Arguments : 14.05.2019  

                                                                                Date of Order : 22.05.2019

 

Complaint Case No. 355/2018

In the matter of:

M/s Sunplast Electronic Pvt. Ltd.

Through its MD/Director

Office at: B-5, Site B, Industrial Area

Surajpur, Noida                   …….Complainant

 

Versus

 

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its General Manager

Having its office at:

2^nd Floor, Core 3, Scope Minar

District Centre, Laxmi Nagar

New Delhi

 

Also at:

1/11955, Muskan Building

Naveen Shahdara, Delhi                     .........Opposite Party

                                                                  

BEFORE:

 

O P GUPTA           -        MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                    Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                      Yes

ORDER

O P GUPTA       -        MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1.          The case of complainant is that he got a transit policy dated 13.06.2016 for insurance of machinery valuing Rs. 2,52,200/- to be transported from Ahemdabad to Greater Noida. The machinery was damaged in transit against which complainant lodged a claim of Rs. 29,24,518.91/- with OP. It paid repair charges to the supplier at Ahemdabad and the price of the machine as per invoice.
2.          As per letter dated 16.02.2017 OP passed claim for Rs. 19,44,155/- against the claim of Rs. 29,24,518.91/- based on proportionate basis stating that single carrying limit on the date of claim was Rs. 55,00,000/-. The complainant never requested for any single carrying limit nor the same was mentioned on the cover note. Single carrying limit has been subsequnetly mentioned in the policy by the OP of its own and without intimating the complainant. OP has deliberately and malafide trying to take advantage of the fine print in the insurance policy. The OP has arbitrarily closed claim of the complainant concluding that it is not entitled to claim on the basis of invoice value and only entitled to claim on the basis of single carrying limit. It issued legal notice dated 04.07.2017. There is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint for directing OP to pay Rs. 9,80,363.91/- towards unpaid claim against damaged machinery alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of passing of claim till realization, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and costs of litigation.
3.          Vide order dated 19.04.2018 complainant was directed to produce copy of discharge voucher mentioned in letter dated 16.02.2017 copy of which is at page no. 16 of the file. On 03.07.2018 counsel for complainant stated that discharge voucher was deposited in original with the OP and complainant did not retain any copy thereof. So a limited notice was issued to OP directing it to file discharge voucher. It filed the same on 19.11.2018.
4.          I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments for the purpose of admission. The copy of discharge voucher clearly recites that complainant received a sum of Rs. 19,44,155/- in full and final settlement of its claim for the loss of machinery in transit.
5.          The counsel for complainant relied upon the decision of National Commission in Ram Das Sales Corporations v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2016 (3) CPJ 40 in which it was held that once circular is issued by IRDA it is not open to insurer to contend at the time of hearing that having executed discharge voucher in full and final settlement of its claim, complainant is stopped from filing consumer complaint claiming additional payment from insurer in respect of claim subject matter of discharge voucher.
6.          However, in latest decision in K N Resources Pvt. Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. II (2019) CPJ 51 National Commission held that once insured accepts a particular amount in full and final settlement of his claim, he is estopped from claiming any further amount from insurance company, since settlement constitutes a binding contract between the parties.
7.          In view of above, decision complaint is dismissed in limini.
8.          Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

(O P Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

 

​