DATE OF FILING : 10.04.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 25.05.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29.02.2016.
M/s. Hindusthan Yarn Twisting Company Limited ( S.S.I. Unit ),
a partnership firm being represented by its partners
Sri Govind Kumar Tulsyan,
son of late Shyam Sundar Tulsyan,
having its office and workship at
73, Rabindra Sarani, P.O. Liluah, Howrah,
PIN 711204 and also office
at 13, Bonfield Lane, 5th floor, Room no. 1,
P.S. Burrabazar, Kolkata,
PIN 700001. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. National Insurance Company Limited,
having its office at 3, Middleton Street,
P.S. Park Street, Post Box no. 9229,
Kolkata 700071,
Being represented by its
Assistant Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
D3, Middleton Street,
Post Box no. 9229,
Kolkata 700071. .
2. National Insurance Company Limited,
having its Division Office at XVIII, 6, Lyons Range, 2nd floor,
Kolkata 700001. ……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, M/s. Hindusthan Yarn Twisting Company Ltd. ( SSI Unit ), against the o.p., National Insurance Company and another, praying for directing the o.ps. to make payment of balance claim of Rs. l4,08,229/- with statutory interest since 20.10.2013 and Rs. 1,90,000/- as compensation for loss of business, mental agony and harassment and also cost of proceeding.
- The case of the petitioner is that the complainant is a consumer under the o.p. insurance company and having hired services of the o.p. since the inception of business by the petitioner in 1964, the petitioner company runs business of cotton yarn twisting and also nylon cotton twisting mixed twisting under the name and style, M/S. Hindusthan Yarn Twisting Company. The petitioner had insurance under the o.p. having its policy no. 101600/11/12/3100000928. The business is run in a rental accommodation at holding no. 73, Rabindra Sarani, P.O. & P.S. Liluah, Howrah, and there is nearby tank by the eastern side of the workshop belonging to the owner of the land and building. The petitioner had insurance of the entire workshop/factory, machines, raw materials, product goods, machineries, equipment etc. In the year 2013-14 due to incessant rain there was heavy water logging and the workshop was submerged with water causing damage to the unfinished products and machine parts of the petitioners who suffered huge loss and the petitioner went to the office of the o.p. and placed claim. The Government Survey Authority assessed the claim amounting to Rs. 4,72,000/- but the o.ps., insurance company, denied to satisfy such claim and told the petitioner to accept Rs. 43,984/- for loss and damage and Rs. 19,387/- for full and final settlement and after prolonged harassment the petitioner accepted the full and final settlement on 17.10.2014 as suffered a prolonged harassment before the o.ps. thinking that if the amount is not received then the company would lose that amount also as threatened by the o.p. and also there was severe crisis in the company. However, the o.ps. cannot snatch the right of claim of the petitioner and the payment receipt dated 20.10.2014 and 25.10.2014 were not at all acted upon and the same would not be binding upon the petitioner and the said full and final settlement wan not at all acted upon and when the o.ps. denied to satisfy the full claim then the petitioner filed this case.
- The o.p. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the petitioner has accepted the claim amount after full and final settlement of the claim and after full and final settlement of the claim the petitioner now cannot claim further. They further submitted that the petitioners relied on Surveyor’s Report dated 22.5.2014 and 23.5.2014 prepared by Samir Kumar Maity, SLA 12462 and the certified report has been prepared in good faith in terms of insurance policy as stipulated by IRDA on the basis of necessary information etc. and the settlement of claim was done based on the materials submitted to the surveyor and now the petitioner cannot raise deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. after acceptance of Rs. 43,984/- and Rs. 19,387/- after signing the discharge voucher respectively.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., National Insurance Company ?
- Whether the petitioner accepted the claim amount after full and final settlement of the claim ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of their case the petitioner filed affidavit as well as documents showing that the petitioner was a policy holder under the o.p., National Insurance Company Ltd., since long time and it is also the admitted case of the parties that there was full and final settlement of the claim and out of the same the petitioner accepted Rs. 43,984/- land Rs. 19,387/- as full and final settlement of the claim and also the petitioner signed the payment voucher which proved the fact that the petitioner accepted the claim amount after full and final settlement of the claim. It is noticed that the settlement was made on the basis of the report of the Surveyor which was accepted by the petitioner and the receipt voucher proved the fact that the petitioner accepted the amount in full and final settlement of the claim in respect of the properties both finished and unfinished goods being lost and damaged andnow agitated the matter further. Our National Commission in the case Kanta Mathur Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., & others categorically opined that the claim case cannot be reopened once cheque towards full and final settlement of the claim has been accepted. Ld. counsel for the o.p. referred two other cases also but in this case the petitioner has accepted the insurance amount in full and final settlement of his claim and he cannot be allowed to go back on the discharge voucher duly signed by the petitioner as also opined by our National Commissionin the case of General Store vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. wherein the petitioner accepted the claim amount and voluntarily singed the discharge voucher in full and final settlement of his case and even then that the District Forum reopened the matter and passed final order in favour of the petitionerand National Commission opined that the District Forumerred in accepting the complaint in respect of the discharge voucher duly signed by the petitioner. In this instant case this Forum finds that the petitioner having accepted the claim of Rs. 43,984/- and Rs. 19,387/- in full and final settlement of claim now cannot be allowed to go back on the discharge voucher duly signed by the petitioner.
In view of above, the claim case fails.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 143 of 2015 ( HDF 143 of 2015 ) be and the same is dismissed on contest without costs against the o.ps.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
