Mehta Pharmaceutical Industries vs Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation

LEARNED counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. Mr. Rishi Jain, learned Advocate is present for the respondent. He wants to file Vakalatnama. He is directed to file memo of appearance immediately. Filing of Vakalatnama will entail more time when the case is pending for the last 5 years. He is directed to file Vakalatnama afterwards within 10 days.

IN July, 2005, the complainant, M/s Mehta Pharmaceutical Industries imported two consignments of Erythromycin Thiocyanate from New York, USA and China. The consignments were worth Rs.1,78,81,887.95. The said consignments were kept in the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation. Unfortunately, the fire broke out in the warehousing and the goods pertaining to the complainant were reduced to ashes. A claim was made by the complainant. This is an admitted fact that the complainant was paid Rs.31,77,864/ - on 9.9.2007 and Rs.62,84,268/ - on 30.8.2008.

THE State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the matter was fully and finally settled between the parties and no further amount was payable to the complainant. Aggrieved by that order, this first appeal has been filed before us. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that due to financial constraints, the complainant agreed to sign the voucher. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention towards paras 9 and 10 of the State Commission''s order, which run as under: "(9) In our view, the plea advanced by the Complainant firm that those two documents were executed under coercion or under duress is not sustainable in law for the simple reason that Complainant nowhere mentioned in the complaint as to who were on behalf of Complainant firm forced or put under duress by the Officials of Warehousing Corporation to execute those two documents, namely stamped receipt and letter of undertaking.

(10) We have thoroughly gone through the complaint. In the complaint in paragraph 16, Complainant simply stated that they were forced to sign stamped receipt and submit letter of undertaking in full and final settlement subject to further decision of the Government or Government Insurance Fund. It was executed as a precondition of releasing their cheque of Rs.62,84,268/ -. However, what is pertinent to note is that in this pleading in paragraph 16 the Complainant nowhere mentioned that its particular officer "namely officer so and so was put to undue pressure or under duress to procure signature on behalf Company on stamped receipt and letter of undertaking for receiving cheque on 30th August, 2008. Simply mentioning that Complainant was forced to execute those two documents is not sufficient when as against the advance payment having been made by the Opponent in full and final settlement of the claim, Complainant is filing consumer complaint further for recovery of rest of the amount for its claim. The Complainant firm is required to give reliable evidence to establish that the particular officer of the Complainant firm was put under duress or under coercion and Opponent Corporation forced him to execute stamped receipt and letter of undertaking as was given by the Complainant firm for getting amount of Rs.62,84,268/ -. What is pertinent to note is the fact that these two letters are not only signed by partner of Complainant firm but it is also signed by M.T. Company Clearing and Forwarding Pvt. Ltd., the Director Sanjay Kanakia. Two persons cannot be put simultaneously under the coercion or under duress to force them to execute letter of undertaking and stamped receipt which are appended on page 88 and 89 of Complainant compilation. What is pertinent to note is that these documents were executed at Vashi, Navi Mumai and not in the office of Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation or in the office of Government Insurance Fund of the Government of Maharashtra, nor it is in the office of Complainant''s firm. In view of this matter, in the absence of evidence of coercion or under duress it cannot be said by mere general pleading made in this behalf in the complaint and in the Affidavit that Complainant''s Officers were under coercion forced to execute stamped receipt and letter of undertaking by the Opponent Warehousing Corporation to release amount of Rs. 62,84,268/ -. The Counsel for the Complainant Mr.Doctor for the Complainant relied upon the ruling of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., 2008 AIR(SCW) 7084) OR 2008(ALL SCR -2533). In this case Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that, if the discharge voucher has been obtained in full and final settlement and is undated as a condition for releasing admitted lesser amount such a coercion on the part of Government Department, statutory corporations, Government companies is unfair, irregular and illegal. So, this practice resorted to by the Government Company was deprecated, but then on mere ratio of this ruling we cannot brush aside the defence of the Opponent totally. In such case the consumer has to satisfy authorities under Consumer Protection Act that discharge voucher was obtained by force, misrepresentation, undue influence or the like. No doubt, Hon''ble Supreme Court held that insured is not estopped from making further claim from Insurance Company on mere execution of discharge voucher by consumer and he still can file consumer complaint for the remaining amount of the claim even after accepting amount under discharge voucher executed by way of full and final settlement of claim. But, what is required to be proved by the insured is that such discharge voucher in full and final settlement was obtained from it by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence etc. So, if there is such a pleading and evidence produced by the Complainant then only claim for remaining amount despite execution of discharge voucher in full and final settlement can be entertained and can be allowed.

In the case of (SC), this is clearly laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of United India Insurance Co. V/s. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors., 1999 2 CPJ 10"

LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the word ''coercion'' is not limited to ''physical coercion'' but it also includes ''financial coercion'' under Section 15 of the Contract Act. He has also invited our attention towards Section 15 of the Contract Act, which runs as under: "15. ''Coercion'' defined. -''Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.

Explanation. - It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed.

Learned counsel for the appellant insists that his case falls within the definition of ''coercion'' defined above.

THE arguments urged by learned counsel for the appellant have left no impression upon us. What is the "financial coercion", was not explained. The details of the alleged financial coercion were kept under the hat. The complainant did not dot the I''s and cross the T''s to understand his position. The position does not begin to jell. We give an example of financial coercion. One has received a notice under SARFAESI Act and the property is going to be sold. This may be a financial coercion. No such like coercion was detailed. The complainant has failed to prove any prima facie facts to show that there was a ''financial coercion''. The State Commission has written very good order and no fault can be attributed to it.

THE first appeal is without merit and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.