Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 351 (UTT)

United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jamuna Dutt Chandola

2005-08-14

LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2005
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sri Surendra Kumar, Acting President : This is an appeal against the order dated 22.9.2004 passed by the District Forum, Bageshwar whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,820/- to the complainant within 60 days and in default, to pay interest @9% from the date of complainant till the date of payment. 2. The brief facts of the case as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant opened a shop with the name of Suhaag Saree Bhandar after taking loan from State Bank of India, Garur, where all types of clothing suiting, sarees, readymade garments etc. were sold. The complainant got the furniture and stock of his shop insured vide policy No. 080902/48/03/00100 effective from 3.4.2003 to 2.4.2004. The furniture was insured for Rs.50,000/- while the stock was insured for Rs. 5,00,000/- It is alleged that on 27.5.2003 in the night fire broke in his shop due to which all the goods lying in the shop and furniture were burnt. On 28.5.2003 in the morning, with the help of local people and fire brigade, the fire was controlled. It is alleged that at the time of fire, there was stock pf Rs. 8,40,000/- in the shop. An FIR was lodged with the police and claim was submitted wite the insurance company. It is said that in April 2004 the insurance com»any paid only a sum of Rs.2,77,605/- in respect of claim, which the complainant received under protest. The complainant requested the insurance company several times for payment of balance claim, but the balance claim was repudiated by the insurance company. There is deficiency in the services of the insurance company and thereafter the complainant filed the complaint. 3. The insurance company filed written statement and said that the complaint is based on wrong facts. It is alleged that the complainant has received a sum of Rs. 2,77,605/- on 5.3.2004 in full and final settlement of his claim and therefore he is not entitled to any further amount. The matter was investigated by the Chartered Accountant of the insurance company and on the basis of his assessment the claim was settled for Rs. 2,77,605/- which the complainant accepted in full and final settlement of his claim. 2,77,605/- on 5.3.2004 in full and final settlement of his claim and therefore he is not entitled to any further amount. The matter was investigated by the Chartered Accountant of the insurance company and on the basis of his assessment the claim was settled for Rs. 2,77,605/- which the complainant accepted in full and final settlement of his claim. It is further alleged that in the beginning the complainant also agreed to receive Rs.2,77,605/- but it was not accepted by the insurance company and then on 10.3.2004 he received the said amount without any term or condition. There is no deficiency in their services and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties filed their affidavits and other relevant documents in support of their allegations. The Learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them allowed the complaint as above, against which order the insurance company has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The fire is admitted. The loss is admitted. The main argument of the insurance company is that when the complainant has received a sum of Rs. 2,77,605/- vide cheque dated 5.3.2004 in full and final settlement of his claim, he is not entitled tp any further amount. It is alleged that the complainant also first accepted to receive Rs. 2,77,605/- under security but the• insurance company refused the payment and thereafter the amount was received by the complainant on 10.3.2004. The alleged under security paper is available on record which has been signed by the complainant. The fire brigade report is also available• on record. The report of Sh. Manoj Joshi, Chartered Accountant is on record in which it is mentioned that bank stock as on 24.5.2003 was Rs. 8.40 lacs and it is further written that there were no significant transactions between 24.4.2003 to 29.5.2003. He assessed the loss of Rs. 2,78,309/-. The letter of the insurance company dated 1.1.2004 is on record in which the insurance company asked the complainant to submit settlement voucher. The receipt dated 12.1.2004 has been filed, which has been signed by the complainant Sh. Jamuna Dutt Chandola and it is for a sum of Rs. 2,77,605/- and in this receipt, it is specifically mentioned, "I/We agree to accept in full and final discharge of my/our claim upon the company". The receipt dated 12.1.2004 has been filed, which has been signed by the complainant Sh. Jamuna Dutt Chandola and it is for a sum of Rs. 2,77,605/- and in this receipt, it is specifically mentioned, "I/We agree to accept in full and final discharge of my/our claim upon the company". This receipt is the main document to prove that the amount was received by the complainant in -full and final discharge of his claim. Any previous receipt which was issued by the complainant under security now becomes invalid in light of this receipt. It is proved from the evidence on record that the complainant has received the amount in full satisfaction and not under protest, therefore he cannot again raise the dispute. 6. Sh. Manoj Joshi in his report also described the formula on the basis of which he assessed the loss, which in our view is justified. The learned Counsel for the insurance company referred the ruling reported in III (1996) CPJ 29 (NC), Dilip Kumar Wamanrao Daryapurkar versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., in which it was held that there was nothing to prove that the amount was received under protest or it was not received under full and final settlement and it was further held that there was no deficiency in the services of the insurance company. There is no case of the complainant that he signed the receipt dated 12.1.2004 under pressure or otherwise. 7. In view of what has been said above, the learned Forum did not properly appreciate the facts of the case. The order under appeal IS not correct and is liable to be set aside and as such the appeal is fit to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 22.9.2004 passed by the learned Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint is hereby dismissed. Costs shall be easy.