BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT. DCFR NO. 16/11 & 17/11.
THIS THE 17th DAY OF JUNE 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
COMPLAINANT :- M/s. Siddarth Cotton Company, Cotton Merchants,
[In C.C NO. 16/11] By its proprietor, Deepakkumar Jain S/o. Mothilal Jain, R/o.
H.No. 11-2-22, M.G. Road, Raichur.
[In C.C NO.17/11] :- M/s. Goutam Traders, Rajendra Gunj Raichur, By its
proprietor, Sri. Mahendrakumar Jain, S/o. Mohanlal Jain, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 11-3-22, Mahaveer Chowk, Raichur. Tq. & Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
COMMON OPPOSITES:- 1. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance
PARTIES Company Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur Tq. & Dist: Raichur.
2. The Chief Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Unity building Annex, Mission Road, Bangalore- 560025.
CLAIM :- For payment of interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount of
Rs. 36,22,435/- from 20-04-10 to 31-12-10.
Date of institution.
[In C.C NO. 16/11 & 17/11] :- 01-03-11.
Notice served on .
[In C.C.NO. 16/11 & 17/11] :- 25-03-11.
Date of disposal :- 17-06-11
Complainants represented by Sri. T.M. Swamy, Advocate.
Opposite Nos-1 & 2 represented by Vishwanath Pattanasetty, Advocate.
---
These cases coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
COMMON JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
These two cases arisen out of the single fire accident dt. 16-03-10 in Raichur. The complainants in both the cases are different, but the facts alleged by each complainant in their respective cases are on similar facts. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 in both the cases are one and the same Insurance Company, hence these two cases heard together and disposed of them by this common judgment.
2. In C.C. No. 16/11 complainant M/s. Siddaharth Cotton Company filed complaint against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 New India Assurance Company Ltd., U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act for to direct the opposite Insurance Company, to pay an amount of Rs. 36,22,435/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. for the delayed period of settlement of his claim with cost.
3. In C.C. No. 17/11 complainant is M/s. Gautam Traders, Raichur filed this complaint against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 Insurance Company, for to direct it to pay an amount of Rs. 74,203/- with interest for the delayed payment, to pay a difference amount of Rs. 39,250/-, as per list survey report with cost.
4. The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No. 16/11 are that, he obtained two Insurance Policies for covering the risk of cotton bales stored in the premises of M/s. Bhandari Udyog Ltd., on 16-03-2010 there was fire accident, he sustained loss of Rs. 45,45,008/- due to gutting of full pressed bales and loose cotton docars. Thereafter, he informed the same to the opposite Insurance Company, who inspected the spot, deputed surveyor assessed the loss, he produced all the documents before the surveyor, subsequently opposite not shown any interest in settling the matter, but an amount of Rs. 36,22,435/- was sent to him by cheque after delay. As per IRDA-2002 Regulations, opposite Insurance Company has to settle the claim within (30) days. But opposite not settled his claim within (30) days, as such, he requested to grant interest on delayed payment from 20-04-10 to 30-12-10 with other reliefs.
5. The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No. 17/11 are that, he stored his cotton bales for pressing in Bhandari Udyog Ltd., Raichur, and those goods were insured under Four Insurance policies. But on 16-03-10, there was a fire accident and he sustained loss of Rs. 10,98,968/-., he reported the same to the opposite Insurance Company. Surveyor appointed and thereafter, he made several representations for settlement and ultimately, an amount of Rs. 8.09,495/- was paid. He received the said amount under protest and also there was a delay in making settlement thereafter, he filed this complaint for to make payment as per earlier surveyor report and interest on the delayed payment.
6. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 in both the cases is the New India Assurance Company Ltd., It filed separate written versions in both the cases, but the defence taken by it, in both the cases are on similar grounds. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that, there was no delay in making payment. The procedure for investigation adopted after receiving information of fire accident, and thereafter, the loss was assessed to the extent of Rs. 36,22,435/- in C.C. No. 16/11 and loss to the extent of Rs. 8.09,495/- was assessed in C.C. No. 17/11. Both the complainants have received their respective amount towards full and final settlement. The theory of receiving the said amount with protest is after thought. No deficiency in its service, as alleged by them, accordingly Insurance Company prayed for to dismiss the above two complaints among other grounds.
7. In-view of the pleadings of the parties in both the cases, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant in C.C. No. 16/11 & in C.C. No. 17/11 have proved the negligence of the opposite Insurance Company in settling their respective claims with regard to loss sustained by them due to fire accident dt. 16-03-10 and thereby opposite in both the cases found guilty under deficiency in its service. ?
2. Whether the complainant in C.C. No. 16/11 & in C.C. No. 17/11 are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in their respective complaints.?
3. What order?
8. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In Negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
9. In C.C. No. 16/11 affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14 are marked. Written arguments filed. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of Divisional Manager of opposite Insurance Company was filed, who is noted as RW-1. The surveyor’s affidavit-evidence also filed, who is noted as RW-2. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked. Written arguments filed.
10. In C.C. No. 17/11 affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of Divisional Manager of opposite Insurance Company was filed, who is noted as RW-1. The surveyor’s affidavit-evidence was filed, who is noted as RW-2. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 are marked. Written arguments filed. On 17-06-2011 the learned advocate for complainant in C.C. No. 17/11 filed a memo by stating that complainant is not the relief as noted at Item No.2 of prayer column and rulings relied by him are:
1) CCC 1996(2) 673 N.S.
2) 1999(4) KCCR 2873.
3) I(2011) CPJ 125.
4) II(2002) CPJ 96 (NC).
5) I(2001) CPJ 192 (NC).
11. In the light of the pleadings of the parties and their respective documentary and affidavit-evidences in C.C. No. 16/11 and rulings relied by him, there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the complainant over the goods and coverage of Insurance with opposite Insurance Company. Further it is fact that, the said goods of the complainant was burnt in fire accident on 16-03-10 and he sustained loss of Rs. 36,22,435/- thereafter he received that amount from the opposite Insurance Company vide cheque dt. 30-12-10.
12. In the present case, the only grievance of the complainant is that, as per IRDA-2002 Regulations, opposite Insurance Company has to settle his claim within (30) days from the date of his claim petition. But, opposite Insurance Company not settled his claim within (30) days, as such, he is entitled interest for delayed period at the rate of 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 36,22,435/-.
13. On the other hand, opposite Insurance Company relied on the ruling reported in (2000) 1 SCC 66 Ravaneet Singh Bagga V/s. K.L.M. Royal Dutch AIR Lines and took two contentions. Among them, the first contention is that, the complainant executed a voucher towards full and final settlement for Rs. 36,22,435/- and received the same there was no protest by the complainant as on the date of its execution and receipt of that amount.
14. The second contention of the complainant is that, in voucher executed by the complainant-himself, he is given up all present claims and future claims with regard to the said policies, as such, he cannot say that, there was a deficiency in service and he is not entitled for the interest for such alleged delayed period.
15. In support of this contention Insurance Company, produced Ex.R-2 which is dt. 23-12-10, It is a discharge voucher executed by the complainant in which, he stated and acknowledged regarding the receipt of Rs. 36,22,435/- towards full and final settlement. He also given up his present and future claims under said protest. The protest letter said to have filed by the complainant is not dt. 23-12-10 but it is dt. 31-12-10 and also it is not on the date of receipt of the cheque.
16. Ex.P-10 sent by RPAD on 31-12-10, so Ex.P-10 the alleged protest letter issued by the complainant after (7) days of his execution of the discharge voucher Ex.R-2 is after thought. No records are out coming to show that, Ex.R-2 was got by the Insurance Company with cohersion or misrepresentations, as such Ex.R-2 is binding on the complainant and accordingly, the complainant cannot claim such interest on alleged delayed period or future claims, if any, accordingly, we have not accepted the contentions of the complainant. He is not entitled for interest on alleged delayed payment. Hence we have accepted Ex.R-2, which is binding on the complainant, and thereby complainant is not entitled for any claims against opposite Insurance Company in respect of the said policies, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative.
17. As regards to C.C. No. 17/11 the main prayer of the complainant is for to pay an amount of Rs. 39,250 which is a difference amount of the loss surveyed by the first surveyor and second surveyor. But on 17-06-2011 advocate for complainant filed a memo by stating that, he is not pressing this prayer, hence we given up any discussions in this regard.
18. His contention is that, he received an amount of Rs. 8,09,495/- under protest vide his protest letter at Ex.P-14 dt. 30-12-10.
19. The learned advocate for opposite denied all such contentions of the complainant and contended that, the final survey Ex.R-3 is dt. 03-06-10 who assessed the loss of Rs. 8,09,495/- and accordingly, complainant executed Ex.R-4 dt. 23-12-10 discharge voucher regarding the receipt of the said amount in favour of Insurance Company towards full and final settlement, as such now, he cannot hesitate, as he is entitled for the interest on alleged delayed payment.
20. Keeping in view of the submissions made on both sides, and also their respective documents, we have noticed the fact that, Ex.R-4 which is a discharge voucher dt. 23-12-10 executed by this complainant in favour of Insurance Company for an amount of Rs. 8,09,495/- towards full and final settlement under the policy and thereafter he received an amount of Rs. 8,09,495/- vide DD sent by the opposite towards full and final settlement.
21. Now, as regards to the protest letter Ex.P-14 dt. 31-12-10 is concerned, it is a fact that, Ex.P-14 is out coming after (7) days after execution of discharge voucher Ex.R-4 and one day after the receipt of the said amount. In the circumstances stated above, we are of the view that, protest letter Ex.P-14 issued by the complainant is after thought, if really, he was not satisfied with the amount mentioned in the discharge voucher Ex.R-4, then what was necessary for him to execute it by stating that, it was an amount towards full and final settlement no proper explanation out coming from his side. In the said circumstances we are not taking into consideration of the case of complainant that, he received the said amount under protest vide Ex.P-14.
22. In view of execution Ex.R-4, further claims if any, under the said policy stands extinguished, now he cannot hesitate either for enhancing amount or for alleged of delayed payment. Accordingly, we have not noticed any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and thereby he answered Point No-1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
23. In view of our finding on Point No-1, with regard to C.C. No. 16/11 & in C.C. No. 17/11. Complainants in both the cases are not entitled for any reliefs as prayed in their respective complaints, accordingly we answered this Point in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
24. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 in C.C. No. 16/11 and 17/11, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint bearing in C.C. No. 16/11 is dismissed. Similarly complaint bearing in C.C. No. 17/11 is also dismissed.
Keep the copy of this order in C.C. No. 17/11.
Intimate the same to all the parties of both the cases.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 17-06-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
