AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter has been called out and in spite of the matter being entertained for the last 15 minutes in the presence of counsel for the respondents/insurance company, no one has turned up on behalf of the appellant/complainant.
It is an appeal arising out of the order passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the claim of the appellant in respect of certain stocks that were insured with the respondents has been declined holding that the ground taken for advancing the cause was not available in law as no evidence had been filed in support thereof.
The background is that this insurance policy was subsisting as on 31.08.2008 when an alleged accidental fire is stated to have taken place resulting in the loss of the stocks. A claim was submitted to the tune of Rs.27,50,700/- that was examined by the insurance company and the surveyor’s report dated 13.06.2009 was submitted which is on record. Upon assessment and after ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of the claim, a sum of Rs.4,70,399/- was found admissible that was paid over to the complainant/appellant who in satisfaction of the said payment issued a discharge voucher on 03.07.2009.
Immediately thereafter the complainant seems to have dispatched a protest note which is said to have been dispatched on 07.07.2009. A copy of the said letter has been filed as annexure-13, followed by a reminder dated 16.09.2009, alleging that he had accepted the amount for which he had signed a discharge voucher under duress and some pressure and financial hardship. The complaint before the State Commission was instituted with these allegations and contending that the issuance of the discharge voucher does not in any way bar the claim of the complainant and in the absence of any such legal impediment, the factual backdrop of the transaction should be construed in a manner as if the discharge voucher had been signed under duress.
The insurance company took up a defence that no such evidence of duress or hardship or coercion was led so as to establish the signing of the discharge voucher by the complainant and in the absence of any such evidence, such an assertion or the issuance of the protest letter does not come to the aid of the complainant.
The State Commission accepted the stand taken by the insurance company and dismissed the complaint against which the present appeal has been filed.
None appears for the appellant/complainant and in the above background keeping in view the said facts we have no option but to dismiss the appeal in default. It is ordered accordingly.