AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shantanu Kemkar, J.
This is defendant''s appeal filed u/s 96 of the CPC against the judgment and decree passed on 7-1-1995 by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 12-A/90.
The plaintiff''s/respondent''s case was that he insured his truck bearing registration No. C.P.Q 7299 with the defendant/appellant. During the currency of the insurance policy, on 29-5-1984 the said truck met with an accident and was completely destroyed. As per the plaintiff the truck was insured for Rs. 2,30,000/- but the defendant assessed the compensation of only Rs. 1,70,000/-. Dis-satisfied with the amount assessed and paid the plaintiff filed a suit claiming further amount of Rs. 60,000/-, interest thereon and also transportation expenses of salvage. The plaintiff''s case was that he offered for settlement of claim for Rs. 1,70,000/- and accepted the amount of Rs. 1,37,000/- + Rs. 33,000/- salvage, as he was under mental pressure and therefore even though he accepted the compensation amount he is not precluded from claiming further amount.
The defendant/appellant filed its written statement inter alia contending that the plaintiff himself offered to accept Rs. 1,70,000/- against the full and final satisfaction of his claim. In view of his offer dated 6-9-1984 and also duly executed discharge voucher dated 25-7-1985 the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit claiming more amount. It was also stated that the compensation was paid as assessed by the surveyor considering the market value of the truck, which was being plied by the plaintiff for a long distance. The surveyor had also took into consideration its depreciated value. The plaintiff having voluntarily offered and accepted the amount cannot make any grudge of it on the ground that at the time of making offer and accepting the amount he was under mental pressure.
The trial Court on the basis of above averments framed as many as four issues and recorded evidence. After hearing the arguments the trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 61,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with proportionate cost. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree the appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal.
Mrs. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that on 6-9-1984 the plaintiff offered to receive Rs. 1,70,000/- towards his claim. Thereafter on 25-7-1985 he executed discharge voucher and accepted the cheque. There was no murmur by him of he being paid less, nor he complained that the offer was made under mental pressure. The mental pressure cannot be said to have lasted for such a long period. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the conduct of the plaintiff establishes that the suit was based on afterthought and false ground and, therefore, the trial Court should have dismissed the same. In support of her submission, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Kapur Chand Godha Vs. Mir Nawab Himayatalikhan Azamjah, .
On the other hand, Shri Alok Aradhe, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the plaintiff (PW1) has categorically stated that he was under mental stress, as pressure and coercion was exercised on him. There is no cross-examination on this point on behalf of Insurance Company, therefore, the evidence of the plaintiff is deemed to have been accepted by the defendant. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment in the case of Punjab Rao Vs. D.P. Meshram and Others, . He further submitted that while exercising the appellate powers, the Court should be slow in interfering in the finding of the fact. In support he relied on the judgment in case of Jamuna Prasad Singh Vs. Shri Ramnivas and Others, and in the case of Madhusudan Das Vs. Smt. Narayanibai (Deceased) by Lrs. and Others, .
In reply to the aforesaid submissions Mrs. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the plaintiff came with a specific plea that he was under mental pressure and coercion when he offered and executed the discharge voucher, the burden was on him to prove this plea. The plaintiff failed to examine Badri Prasad Soni in whose presence he made offer dated 6-9-1984 Ex.D/1. Plaintiff''s bald statement contrary to the various documents cannot be accepted as gospel truth. She further submitted that the trial Court having ignored the material evidence and having misread the evidence, this Court in its appellate jurisdiction can certainly interfere in the finding of the trial Court and can take a different view.
In order to prove his case, plaintiff Rajendra Prasad examined himself as PWI. In his deposition plaintiff (PW1) has stated that he had insured his truck for Rs. 2,30,000/-. The defendants were ready to give compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- but he was not ready to accept it. Thereafter, the Officers of the defendant''s company informed him that they would not be able to pay him more than Rs. 1,40,000/-. Again after 3-4 days he contacted the defendant''s officers on which he was informed that at the most, amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- can be increased by two to five thousand, if it is acceptable to him, he may accept. He repeatedly used to contact the defendants but the officers of the defendants were not agreeable to pay more. Thereafter, he was taken to defendant''s Bhopal Office, where he was informed that Rs. 1,70,000/- can be paid to him towards his claim, if it is acceptable, he may agree, otherwise he is free to take suitable action. The defendant''s Branch Manager convinced him to agree. He was also convinced to take salvage of Rs. 33,000/- and accept Rs. 1,37,000/-. Accordingly, he accepted Rs. 1,37,000/-. Plaintiff (PW1) further deposed that during the aforesaid period he was not having sleeps in the night and was under mental tension. In his cross examination he has deposed that he made an offer Ex.D/1, since he was informed by the defendant''s that he will not get any more than 1,70,000/-. At the time of making offer Ex.D/1 dated 6-9-1984 Badri Prasad Soni was accompanied with him. He also admitted execution of Ex. D/4 a discharge voucher on 25-7-1985. He also admitted that on 3-8-1985 he received the cheque. He has stated after 3-8-1985, he went to the Branch Office and the Branch Manager assured for further payment but directed to him to wait for few days. Strangely he waited till 14-7-1988. He further stated that he does not remember on which day he went to the Branch Office.
In rebuttal the defendants examined K.L. Daswani, Administrative Officer as (DW1). It is pertinent to mention that so far as the execution of document Ex.D/1 and D/4 the same is not disputed by the plaintiff. On the basis of aforesaid evidence it has to be seen as to whether the finding recorded by the trial Court is sustainable.
The trial Court on the basis of survey report Ex.D/10 relied by both the parties, decreed the suit by holding that when the value of the truck was assessed to Rs. 2,31,000/- by the surveyor, it was the duty of the defendants to establish as to why the plaintiff was paid only Rs. 1,70,000/-.
The above conclusion and inference is apparently contrary to the survey report Ex. D/10. In the survey report Ex. D/10 though the cost of the truck was shown to be Rs. 2,31,000/- but in the said report itself it is mentioned that the agreed amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- is reasonable keeping in view the market conditions prevailing at Sagar, at the time of fire. It is also observed in survey report Ex. D/10 that the truck was running for carrying Tendu leaves and Bidis on long routes. It is also mentioned that the market value of the truck is not less than Rs. 1,75,000/-. Thus from Ex.D/10 the market value of the truck was assessed by Shri B.L. Raj and Shri Anil B. Verma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was Rs. 1,75,000/- and not Rs. 2,31,000/- as has been held by the trial Court. Thus this finding of the trial Court is not sustainable.
So far as the plea of mental pressure it was the duty of the plaintiff to have established by cogent evidence, the fact that he executed consent letter dated 6-9-1984 Ex.D/1, the discharge voucher dated 25-7-1985 Ex.D/4 and received cheque on 3-8-1985 under mental pressure or coercion. On the other hand from the evidence of the plaintiff (PW1) it reveals that earlier he was insisting for Rs. 2,30,000/- but after some negotiations and refusal of the defendants to pay more than Rs. 1,70,000/-. He agreed for Rs. 1,70,000/-including salvage. Thereafter, he accepted to keep salvage valuing Rs. 33,000/-and voluntarily accepted Rs. 1,37,000/- by cheque. The assessment of value of salvage was neither disputed before the trial Court nor in this appeal. There is no evidence to the fact that he was under any mental pressure or he was forced to sign the papers. He failed to lead evidence of Badri Prasad Soni who is witness of Ex.D/1. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the mental pressure existed from 6-9-1984 the date of his offer Ex. D/1 for settlement of claim for Rs. 1,70,000/- till he signed discharge voucher D/4 on 25-7-1985 and accepted the cheque on 3-8-1985 and even thereafter.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the present case. There is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the plaintiff though initially claiming higher amount but accepted the amount as paid on the basis of survey report Ex. D/10. He offered on 6-9-1984 vide Ex. D/1 thereafter executed discharge voucher certificate Ex. D/4 on 25-7-1985 and received payment on 3-8-1985. For this long period of about eleven months from the date of giving consent letter to the date of execution of the discharge voucher and receiving of cheque there was no effort on the part of the plaintiff to revert from his offer on the ground that he was under mental pressure. Even after this he remained silent for a long period and filed a suit on 26-7-1988.
The trial Court overlooking material and relevant evidence, decreed the suit, in such circumstances this Court in its appellate jurisdiction has ample power to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Harphool Singh (Dead) Through His L.Rs., and in Madanlal (Dead) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Yoga Bai (Dead) by Lrs., .
Thus, in my view, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set aside. No order as to costs.