http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AJMER SINGH COTTON & GENERAL MILLS & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/08/1999

BENCH: R.P.Sethi, S.Saghir Ahmed

JUDGMENT:

SETHI,J.

     Whether  the  insured  is  estopped  from  making  any further claim from the insurer after accepting the insurance claim  amount in full and final settlement of all the claims by executing the discharge voucher willingly and voluntarily without  any protest or objections?  Whether inspite of  the acceptance  of  the claim amount and execution of  discharge voucher voluntarily, the insured is entitled to the grant of any  interest?   Whether  the  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal Commissions  constituted under the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986  are entitled to fasten liability against the insurance companies  over and above the liabilities payable under  the contract  of insurance envisaged in the policy of insurance? are  the main questions of law required to be adjudicated in all  these  appeals.  In Civil Appeal No.  535 of  1994  the respondent   No.1   had    procured    two   policies   Nos. 201202-11--43-11-01234-90   from   the   appellant-insurance company.   Similarly  in  Civil  Appeal  No.   723  of  1994 respondent  No.1 had procured two insurance covers operative from  20th October, 1989 to 19th June, 1990 to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-  and from 3rd April 1990 to 29th June, 1990 to the  extent of Rs.10,00,000/- respectively.  Respondent No.1 had also procured insurance cover to the tune of Rs.27 lakhs from  respondents 2 to 4.  The respondent suffered losses on account  of fire regarding which the surveyors are appointed and  upon submission of their reports the payments were made which  were  accepted  by the insured  with  declaration  of receipt  of  the "sum in full and final discharge of  claims upon  them".  After the payments were made, the  respondents filed complaint petitions before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission,  Punjab at Chandigarh claiming  inter alia  interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum  against the  appellant.   The State Commission dismissed the  claims but  the  National  Consumer Disputes  Redressal  Commission accepted  the appeal of the respondent No.1 and directed the appellant  to  pay the interest at the rate of 18 per  cent. The  facts  in  Civil  Appeal No.  534 of  1994  are  almost identical  for determining the controversy and deciding  the question  of  law noted hereinabove.  We have heard  learned counsel  for the parties and perused the record.  It is true that  the  award of interest is not specifically  authorised under  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called ’the  Act’) but in view of our judgment in Sovintorg (India) Ltd.   Vs.   State Bank of India (Civil Appeal No.   823  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

1992)  decided  on 11th August, 1999, we are of the  opinion that  in  appropriate  cases the forum and  the  commissions under  the  Act are authorised to grant reasonable  interest under  the  facts and circumstances of each case.  The  mere execution  of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the  consumer  from  preferring claim with  respect  to  the deficiency  in service or consequential benefits arising out of  the  amount  paid in default of  the  service  rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be  in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the  Commission under  the  Act that such discharge voucher or  receipt  had been  obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed  as  fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or  by mis-representation  or  the  like.  If in a given  case  the consumer  satisfies  the  authority under the Act  that  the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, mis-representation, under  influence or the like, coercive bargaining  compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made  would  be  justified in granting  appropriate  relief. However, where such discharge voucher is proved to have been obtained  under  any of the suspicious  circumstances  noted hereinabove,  the  tribunal  or   the  commission  would  be justified  in  granting  the appropriate  relied  under  the circumstances  of  each  case.  The mere  execution  of  the discharge  voucher  and  acceptance of the  insurance  claim would  not estopp the insured from making further claim from the  insurer  but  only under the circumstances  as  noticed earlier.   The  Consumer  Disputes   Redressal  Forums   and Commissions  constituted  under the Act shall also have  the power  to  fasten liability against the insurance  companies notwithstanding the issuance of the discharge voucher.  Such a  claim  cannot  be termed to be  fastening  the  liability against   the  insurance  companies   over  and  above   the liabilities   payable  under  the   contract  of   insurance envisaged  in the policy of insurance.  The claim  preferred regarding  the  deficiency of service shall be deemed to  be based  upon  the  insurance  policy, being  covered  by  the provisions  of Section 14 of the Act.  In the instant  cases the  discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and  the complainants had not alleged their execution  under fraud,  undue influence, mis-representation or the like.  In the  absence of pleadings and evidence the State  Commission was  justified in dismissing their complaints.  The National Commission  however  granted relief solely on the ground  of delay  in  the settlement of claim under the policies.   The mere  delay of a couple of months would not have  authorised the  National  Commission to grant relief particularly  when the  insurer had not complained of such a delay at the  time of  acceptance of the insurance amount under the policy.  We are  not  satisfied  with  the  reasoning  of  the  National Commission and are of the view that the State Commission was justified  in dismissing the complaints though on  different reasonings.   The  observations of the State  Commission  in Jiyajeerao  Cotton Mills Ltd.  Vs.  New India Assurance  Co. Ltd.  (Original Petition No.  52 of 1991 decided on November 28,  1991)  shall  always be construed in the light  of  our findings in this judgment and the mere receipt of the amount without any protest would not always debar the claimant from filing  the complaint.  Under the circumstances the  appeals are  allowed.  The orders of the National Commission are set aside  by  confirming  the  orders   passed  by  the   State Commission.   The  complaint of the respondents shall  stand dismissed without any order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3