AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1066 of 2009 - The United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar Cotton Industries by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner was engaged in manufacturing and trading of various cotton products obtained 5 insurance policies from OP/petitioner and one insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Co. for different periods of the year 2005-06. On 8.2.2006, fire broke out in complainant''s factory and OP appointed surveyor and as per survey report loss of Rs.71,34,827/- before deduction of reinstalment premium was assessed. OP made payment of Rs.35,00,000/- on 10.10.2006 and paid Rs.23,56,525/- under Policy No. 1446, 1998 and 2302, but did not pay under Policy No. 1876. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP approved claim of Rs.66,11,722/- before deduction of reinstalment premium and Rs.35,00,000/- were paid "on account" and Rs.23,56,525/- were paid towards full and final satisfaction and now no amount remains due and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.12,88,282/- with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of no proof of receiving payment under Policy No. 1876 as full and final satisfaction, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
Perusal of survey report reveals that surveyor assessed loss of Rs.31,75,469.95 under Insurance Policy No. 1876 and assessed loss of different amounts under other policies of Ops and total loss assessed was Rs.71,44,807.38. As per written statement of OP, Regional Office approved claim of Rs.66,11,722/- before deduction of reinstalment premium. Perusal of payment vouchers reveals that Rs.35,00,000/- was approved to the complainant "on account" and later on vide voucher dated 10.10.2006 disbursed payment of Rs.30,00,000/- under Policy No. 1876, but this voucher nowhere mentions payment as full and final payment of the assessed loss. Perusal of other vouchers reveals that under Policy No. 2302, Rs.996348/- was paid as full and final discharge, under Policy No. 1498, Rs.864268/- were paid as full and final discharge and under Policy No. 1446, Rs.495909 were paid as full and final discharge. Thus, it becomes clear that payment of Rs.30,00,000/- under Policy No. 1876 was not paid as full and final discharge. Had this payment been made as full and final discharge under Policy No. 1876 against assessed loss of Rs.3175,469.95, endorsement regarding full and final discharge must have appeared in the voucher as appeared in other vouchers. In such circumstances, it can be very well inferred that Rs.30,00,000/- payment under Policy No. 1876 was not made as full and final payment and petitioner never accepted Rs.30,00,000/-as full and final payment under this policy.
As surveyor had assessed loss of Rs.3175469.95 under Policy No. 1876 and OP has not disputed this assessed loss, Complainant is entitled to receive balance amount i.e. Rs.175469.95 from the OP.
Learned Counsel for the respondent cold not place any document on record to prove that petitioner received Rs.30,00,000/- as full and final discharge of the claim against assessed loss of Rs.3175469.95 and in such circumstances, petitioner is entitled to receive balance amount Rs.175469.95 and to this extent revision petition is to be allowed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.1288282/- as awarded by learned District forum. As petitioner has already received payment under 3 policies as full and final discharge of the claim he is not entitled to receive rest of the amount assessed by surveyor and to this extent, learned State Commission rightly observed that on account of receipt of payment as full and final satisfaction, petitioner is not entitled to receive any more amount under these 3 policies. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any law or document to substantiate his argument that petitioner has not received payment as full and final satisfaction under other 3 policies and in such circumstances, order passed by learned State Commission to this extent is in accordance with law.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1066 of 2009 - The United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar Cotton Industries and order of District Forum dated 29.9.2009 passed in Complaint No. 106/07 - Rasiklal Dhirajlal Mashru (Rameshwar Cotton Industries) Vs. The United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Is modified and respondent is directed to pay Rs. 175469.95 to the petitioner with interest @ 9% p.a. from 18.10.2007 till actual payment. Rest of the directions given by District Forum regarding payment of compensation and litigation cost are set aside.