Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This consumer complaint is filed by the complainant-Concept Pharamaceuticals Ltd. having office at 167, CST Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai against the opponent/Oriental Insurance Company, Ghatkopar Divisional Office, Mumbai. According to the complainant-Company it is a registered company under the Companies Act. The complainant-Company engaged in the production, sale, distribution of pharmaceutical and medicinal products. The production activities are carried out at Aurangabad and the finished goods are dispatched to various depots all over the India including their Indore Depot. The complainant-Company pleaded that finished goods stored at the Depots are insured by the complainant with opponent-Insurance Company. Complainant-Company pleaded that they had taken insurance over for `6,25,00,000/- on 28/02/1996 and valid upto 27/02/1997. It covered stocks worth `30 Lakhs stored by the complainant-Company in their Indore Depot. The complainant-Company had paid the premium accordingly. On 26/09/1996 complainant-Company received communication from the Indore Depot that burglary had taken place in the night of 25-26th September 1996 and it was further reported that the stocks were stolen by unknown person. Accordingly, opponent/Insurance Company was informed about it by the complainant-Company by their letter dated 26/09/1996 (Exhibit-C). Necessary F.I.R. was also lodged. The Insurance Company has appointed one Mr.Suresh Kumar Kimtee as their Surveyor, who visited the place of burglary i.e. their Indore Depot on 26/09/1996 itself and thereafter on many occasions and lastly after lapse of three months, he sent letter dated 02/01/1997 to the complainant asking him to submit some documents which is at Exhibit-E. Complainant-Company submitted the documents. However, despite submission of documents and despite making requests and persuasion for more than 2½ years, the complainant-Company received communication from M/s.Mulchand M. Nagda & Co., the Surveyor that they had been instructed by the opponent/Insurance Company to investigate the loss of the claim and had asked to submit Balance-sheet as on 31/03/1997 which in fact had no concern. With the claim form requisite papers were sent to them way back in the year 1997. According to the complainant-Company, the opponent/Insurance Company deliberately delayed the process of sanction of claim and resorted to delaying tactics. It pleaded that the Insurance Company had not sanctioned the claim within reasonable time. The opponent/Insurance Company was guilty of rendering deficient service. The complainant-Company therefore requested the Insurance Company by letter dated 15/07/1999 that they should at least consider and accord adhoc or interim payment of their claim. The opponent/Insurance Company thereafter gave a cheque of `6,71,828/- to the complainant and officer of the Insurance Company also confirmed that he had also brought some blank stamped receipt for obtaining signature on the same from the complainant. The complainant inquired from the Representative of opponent/Insurance Company that a cheque was not enclosed with any covering letter, but official told him that it was an interim payment out of total claim of `21,89,486/-. The complainant therefore accepted the cheque of `6,71,828/- believing the words of official of the Insurance Company and signed the stamped receipt. The complainant-Company pleaded that they asked for further release of further cheque towards insurance claim, but there was no response from the Insurance Company. According to the complainant-Company even after lapse of three years, opponent/Insurance Company has not settled the balance of claim of `15,17,658/- which amounts to deficiency in service. According to the complainant-Company, Representative of the opponent/Insurance Company misrepresented the complainant-Company that their balance claim would be considered at a later stage and obtained signature on the Discharge Voucher and on the blank stamped receipt which amounts to deficiency in service and therefore, the complaint has been filed to claim amount of `15,17,658/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from 26/09/1996 till realization of payment. He also claimed `3 Lakhs towards mental harassment besides costs of the complaint. In support of complaint, affidavit has been filed of Shri S. Neelmaheshwaran, Senior Manager of complainant-Complainant. Documents along with affidavits are also filed. The complainant also filed further evidence affidavit on 23/04/2012.
2. Opponent/Insurance Company filed written version and contested the complaint. According to the opponent/Insurance Company claim of the complainant was fully settled and nothing was payable to the complainant and therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the opponent, complainant-Company is not entitled to file present complaint and it was not maintainable under the law and is liable to be dismissed. It is a well settled position in law that when the claim of the complainant has been fully investigated by the Insurance Company and after having satisfied itself that the claim was false same was rejected by the Insurance Company and therefore, against such rejection consumer complaint will not lie. The only proper remedy is to file regular civil suit in the Civil Court. Opponent/Insurance Company pleaded that complaint is also barred by limitation as one of the condition of the policy is that if the Insurance Company disclaimed the liability to the insured and claim is not filed within twelve calendar months from such disclaimer, for all purposes it will be deemed to have been abandoned and claim shall not be recoverable at all. In the case of Paras Textiles V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1993 (1) CPR 713, it was held that claim filed after twelve calendar months from the date of repudiation by the Insurance Company is not void but the complaint filed beyond such period is not maintainable. According to the opponent, claim of the complainant-Company has been allowed to the tune of `6,71,828/- and insured had agreed to the same as full and final settlement of the claim. His claim was settled on 30/08/1999 and if he had any grievance of the same he should have immediately acted in the matter of rejection of the remaining claim. In any case, the case of the complainant-Company has been filed after twelve months from the settlement of the claim and therefore, complaint is time-barred and not maintainable. As mentioned by the opponent/Insurance Company, the claim of the complainant has been settled on 30/08/1999 when the Representative of the opponent informed the complainant’s Representative about claim being settled at `6,71,828/-. Representative of the complainant immediately agreed and executed stamped receipt towards full and final settlement of the claim. It is pertinent to note that Representative of the complainant-Company had on the complainant’s letterhead issued a letter of the same date i.e. 30/08/1999 and sent to the opponents (i) letter of Undertaking (ii) stamped receipt and (iii) letter of subrogation towards settlement of burglary claim. Opponent/Insurance Company pleaded that letter dated 30/08/1999 which was issued by the complainant’s Representative made clear about the fact that this was a full and final settlement of burglary claim and there can be no other interpretation about the wordings of the said letter. The stamped receipts were filled in and were not blank and it was clearly mentioned therein that `6,71,828/- was towards full and final settlement of the above claim. In the circumstances, when claim has been paid on settlement, no further consumer complaint can be filed against the Insurance Company. It has been held by the Supreme Court when the complainant accepts claim amount towards full and final settlement of all the claims by executing discharge voucher voluntarily the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [1999 CCJ 1159]. The Insurance Company submitted that in executing the Discharge Voucher / Stamped Receipt, there was no fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence or the like and thereby present complaint is not maintainable and it therefore pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with costs.
3. We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.Mishra for the complainant and Mr.A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate for the opponent/Insurance Company.
4. We have carefully gone through the affidavits and documents filed by both the parties and we are finding that claim of the complainant-Company was considered by Mulchand M. Nagda & Co., Surveyor, Valuers & Loss Assessor on 26/07/1999 and they had considered all the document of burglary claim and after going through the documents produced, they assessed the loss to the extent of `6,71,828/-. The complainant-Company sent a letter on their letterhead of 30/08/1999 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that – “Please find enclosed herewith a letter of Undertaking and Stamped Receipt, Letter of Subrogation towards settlement of Indore Burglary Claim”. This letter has been voluntarily given by the complainant-Company to the opponent/Insurance Company along with stamped receipt wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant-Company has received from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. a sum of `6,71,828/- being a payment in respect of full and final settlement of the above claim. Claim number and policy number are also mentioned on this letter and there is no protest mentioned anywhere on this stamped receipt and it is bearing stamp of complainant-Company and signature of authorized signatory. Then they had also enclosed a Letter of Undertaking and Letter of Subrogation. Advocate Mr.Vidyarthi laid emphasis on these documents rightly and argued before us that complainant-Company had accepted the cheque given by the Insurance Company towards full and final settlement of the claim. They had also executed independent letter to that effect. They enclosed with the letter, a Letter of Subrogation, Letter of Undertaking and Stamped Receipt wherein they have mentioned that they were accepting the cheque of `6,71,828/- towards full and final settlement of the insurance claim pertaining to burglary case at Indore Depot. Thus, this being the position, we are of the view that claim was already settled and there was no deficiency in service on the part of opponent/Insurance Company. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 25th October 2012.
