Haryana

StateCommission

A/644/2016

SUNITA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

TAJINDER SINGH

10 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      644 of 2016

Date of Institution:      14.07.2016

Date of Decision :       10.01.2017

 

M/s Sunita Rani and others through its Proprietor Shri Vijay Bansal s/o Sh. Firangi Lal, Resident of House No.369, Sector-10, Panchkula.

 

                                      Appellant-Cp,[;aomamt

Versus

1.      United India Insurance Company Limited Divisional office, SCO 177-178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.

2.      Union Bank of India, Sector-8, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Vijay Bansal-authorised representative of appellant.

                             Shri Ram Avtar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2 (dispensed with).

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated June 23^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed of the complainant seeking insurable benefits with respect to its building/godown which was damaged due to heavy rain, was dismissed.

2.                M/s Sunita Rani and others got its builder/godown insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party for the period September 1^st, 2012 to August 31^st, 2013 for Rs.7.00 crores.

3.                On 14^th September, 2012 the insured building suffered damage due to heavy rain. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the building. Claim being lodged, the Insurance Company paid Rs.5,18,300/- to the complainant. After accepting the above said amount, the complaint filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that the loss suffered by it was to the extent of Rs.10,13,010/- and thus sought remaining payment of Rs.4,94,701/- from the Insurance Company.

4.                The Insurance Company-Opposite Party in its written version stated that the complainant had received the amount of Rs.5,18,300/- towards full and final settlement of its claim. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the complaint.  Hence the instant appeal.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the complainant did not sign the Discharge Voucher and the Insurance Company played fraud by executing the forged documents.  

7.                The question for consideration is as to whether the complainant had received the amount of Rs.5,18,300/- towards full and final settlement of its claim or not?

8.                A perusal of Discharge Voucher (Annexure R-3) shows that it is a consolidated document of receipt for payment as well as discharge. It depicts that there are signature appearing on the document. Though the complainant denies the signature to be of the complainant, however the complainant has reason to deny the signature.  Even otherwise, it is settled law that if a debtor sends payment to the creditor with a condition and the creditor accepts the payment, he accepts the condition also. Therefore, the complainant cannot wriggle out from his admission of having received the payment towards full and final settlement of the claim.

9.                In Aradhna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Through Sh. Ashok Avasthi, Managing Director Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2015 (2) CPR 482 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

“Consent given by a person would be deemed to be a free consent and would be binding upon parties to contract unless it can be shown that it was obtained by exercise of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake.”

10.              In para 5 of Aradhna Faabrics Pvt. Ltd.’s (case Supra), Hon’ble National Commission referred to para 25 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.(2009) 1 SCC 267, which reads as under:-

“25.   Where one of the parties to the contract issues a full and final discharge voucher (or no-dues certificate, as the case may be) confirming that he has received the payment in full and final satisfaction of all claims, and he has no outstanding claim, that amounts to discharge of the contract by acceptance of performance and the party issuing the discharge voucher/certificate cannot thereafter make any fresh claim or revive any settled claim nor can it seek reference to arbitration in respect of any claim.”

11.              In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd, 2015 AIR SCW 67, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a bald plea of fraud, coercion, duress or undue influence is not enough and the party who sets up such a plea must prima facie establish the same by placing material which would substantiate the said plea.

12.              Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the parties, it is held that the complainant received the amount of Rs.5,18,300/- in full and final settlement of the claim. Thus, the impugned order does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Announced 10.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL