Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. The captioned complaint case is filed u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short) seeking a sum of Rs. 27,45,197/- on different heads.
Interest payable on delayed settlement as per para 14 of complaint. | Rs. 24,18, 197.00 |
Fee paid to surveyor, to be reimbursed by the opposite party no.1. | Rs. 2,57,000.00 |
Compensation for harassment | Rs. 50,000.00 |
Cost of Litigation | Rs. 20,000.00 |
Total : Rs. 27,45,197.00
The complainant also alleged about the deficiency in service against the opposite party.
3. The complainant being a Private Limited Company has purchased a Fire Insurance policy from the opposite party on 19.11.2012 covering the period from 20.11.2012 to 19.11.2013 for a sum assured at Rs. 4,70,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores and Seventy Lakhs). It is alleged that on 27.2.2013, at around 15.35 p.m. there was a huge fire in the raw cotton flower feeding shed of the petitioner’s premises and soon it spread to the entire premises. It is only controlled by 11.00 hours by the Fire Brigade called from five Fire stations. The complainant filed claim before the opposite party no.1 on 1.3.2013 claiming a damage of RS. 5,39,81,320.00 ( Rupees Five Crores Thirty nine Lakhs eighty one thousand and three hundred twenty). A surveyor was appointed by opposite party no.1 and the surveyor asked for certain documents and finally assessed the loss at Rs. 3,23,04,710/- ( Rupees Three Crores twenty three lakhs and four thousand seven hundred ten only) and the opposite party no.1 issued a discharge voucher to the complainant regarding full and final settlement of claim amount at Rs. 3,22,42,427/- ( Rupees Three Crores twenty two lakhs forty two thousand and four hundred twenty seven) and payment was made on 11.3.2014 through RTGS. The opposite party has not paid interest for six months as per Clause (a) of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority(in short called ‘IRDA’) Regulations, 2002. Therefore, he filed the case for payment of Rs. 24,18,197/- as the interest on the above amount to the complainant. The complainant also demanded the cost of litigation.
4. The opposite party filed written version stating that the complainant has made the complaint about the damages by fire and made claim for the same. They have computed the loss through the surveyor and settlement was made at Rs. 3,23,42,,427/- and the same has been received by the complainant on 11.3.2014. But thereafter he has filed the complainant. Since the money has been paid to the complainant, there is no complaint to be filed. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. After going through the plea, the issues i.e. (I) whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the complainant and (II) whether the complaint is maintainable.
ISSUE NO.I
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the Fire Insurance Policy from the opposite party for the cotton mill. It is also not in dispute that on 27.2.2013 there was a fire accident causing huge loss to the institution of the complainant and accordingly he made the claim before the insurer who deputed a surveyor and the surveyor has computed the loss at Rs. 3,23,04,710/- and the complainant has received the same on 11.3.2014 after giving consent on 1.9.2013.
7. The only question arise whether the complainant has proved entitlement to interest on the above settled amount for delay in payment after six months of the settlement of the claim.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he is entitled to such amount because of clause 9 of the IRDA circular which states that payment of the total settlement of the claim to be made within seven days from the date of settlement of the claim. It also said that if there is a further delay then, the same can be payable with interest @2% above the normal interest. He further submitted that he is also entitled to the expenses of Rs. 2,57,000/- incurred for the Surveyor.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party drew attention of the Commission to paragraphs 3 and 4 of their written version where it is found that the complainant has received the payment to the full satisfaction. He also drew our attention to Annexure-6 (Discharge Voucher) of the complainant which shows that on 5.3.2014 the complainant has received the amount of Rs. 3,22,42,627/- towards full and final settlement.
10. After considering the argument of both the sides and evidence that the Discharge Voucher has been filed by the complainant accepting the money of Rs. 3,22,42,627/- on 5.3.2014, therefore, there lies no further cause of action, but the complainant states that the Discharge Voucher has been obtained from the opposite party by coercive measure. When evidence is not adduced to show that it was taken by any protest, we are of the view that the Discharge Voucher being signed by the complainant accepting Rs. 3,22,42,627/- towards full and final settlement, further objection to the entitlement of any interest does not arise.
11. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Levis Strauss(India) Private Limited, reported in 10(2022)6 SCC1 held that when discharge voucher showing receipt of the amount with full and final settlement without any protest, there lies no further cause of action. With due respect to the said decision, we are of the view that since the complainant has accepted the amount with full satisfaction voluntarily, no further cause of action arises even as per Insurance Regulatory Development Authority(in short called ‘IRDA’) Regulations, 2002. Learned counsel for the complainant states that the aforesaid Rules were not available at that time. We are not concerned about that but we are concerned that the complainant has received the money without any protest.
12. Be that as it may, on 11.3.2014 the complainant has received the money towards full and final settlement. Hence, there is no further cause of action to claim interest.
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.II
13. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he is entitled to the payment of the bill of the surveyor for Rs. 2,57,000/-. The payment of this amount is not denied by the opposite party. Actually the complainant is entitled to such amount since same has not been paid which is also the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Further, it must be proved that the complainant is a consumer under the Act.
14. The provision of the Act defines at 2(m) of the Act who can claim as a consumer.
“2(m) ‘person’ includes
- A firm whether registered or not;
- A Hindu undivided family;
- A cooperative society;
- Every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (22 of 1860) or not;
15. Now the question arose as to whether the complainant being a juristic person is covered under the definition of ‘person’ can be treated as consumer under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act. It is reported in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and Another Vrs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, 7(2009)3 SCC 240 where Their Lordships held at paragraph-21 and while defining ‘person’ in Section 2(1)(m), the legislature never intended to exclude a juristic person including company. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer and money has been paid to him as per the assessment of the surveyor. Further, the complainant being a consumer is also entitled to get litigation cost.
16. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,57,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs fifty seven thousand ) with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the case till the day of payment within a period of 60 days. Further, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost which shall be paid within the above period failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
17. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
