AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Ambala dismissing his complaint at the threshold as being not maintainable. However, now this appeal is concluded in their favour by the recent exhaustive order of this Commission in I (1994) CPJ 118 = 1993 CPC 589 Girdhari Lal Bansal of Chandigarh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
IN view of the above, the facts which are not in serious dispute may be noticed with utmost brevity. The appellant-concern of M/s. Zamidara Tractors, owned the vehicle which was insured with the respondent-INsurance Company and during the period of the coverage of the risk, it met with a serious accident. INevitably, a claim was lodged for Rs. 96,000/- odd. However, the respondent concern after investigation paid only a sum of Rs. 69,730/- to the complainant. It was the stand that this did not satisfy his claim in particular because of the delay and non-payment of interest and, therefore, a further payment of Rs. 26,364/- with interest and also a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation was sought. In the written statement, the respondent-insurers admitted the broad factual position of the insurance of the vehicle and the fact of the accident and the award of Rs. 69,730/- against the insured''s claim. However, the firm preliminary objection was that the said sum has been accepted by the appellant in full and final settlement of the claim and therefore, he was estopped from claiming more and maintaining the complaint.
The District Forum noticed that the only point for consideration was whether after having accepted the amount in full and final settlement of the claim, the appellant could further raise the issue of the payment of interest for delay and other incidents. Relying on the decision of the National Commission in I (1992) CPJ 41 (NC) ''Kilaru Jogendru Narayana Prasad v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., it was held that the appellant was estopped from filing the complaint and it was consequently dismissed as non-maintainable.
INEVITABLY Mr. Ajai Singal, primarily relied upon the ratio of ''Girdhari Lal Bansal of Chandigarh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another (supra). It was forcefully contended that even assuming that the amount was accepted in full and final settlement, the same would not preclude the appellant from raising the issue of gross latches in settling of claim and the liability to pay interest from the date of the cause of action. There is patent merit in the aforesaid submission on the basis of the recent binding precedents of the National Commission. Undoubtedly, there was a grey area with regard to the question of the insured accepting payments for their claims either under duress or voluntarily by discharge vouchers in full and final settlement of the claim. However, it appears to us that this question has now been set at rest by the decision of the National Commission in 1992 CPC 365 ''Col. Bhim Singh v. Regional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Therein the National Commission in para 8 of the report expressly examined the legal scope and significance of a discharge in full and final settlement because the question had been cropping up repeatedly. It was authoritatively held as under: "The discharge furnished by the complainant is obviously a discharge for the contractual payment under the policy of the insurance and therefore, discharge does not extinguish his right to claim compensation for any damage, loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party as provided in Section 14(1)(d) of the Act."
THE aforesaid view has been subsequently followed consistently by the National Commission and inevitably by the State Commissions. THEre from the settled position within the consumer jurisdiction which now emerges is that a full and final discharge gives a quietus for the contractual payment under the policy, but in no way extinguishes the consumer right to claim interest, damage or loss suffered by him due to the negligence of the insurers. In this view of the matter, the order of the District Forum holding that the discharge voucher estopped the appellant from preferring the complaint for interest, loss or injury other than the contractual insured payment is on the face of it now unsustainable. The question however, still remains with regard to the delay of the settlement of the claim and the compensation, therefor by way of interest on the awarded amount. This identical question has recently come up for an indepth consideration in Girdhari Lal Bansal''s case (supra) wherein after examining the matter from every conceivable angle, it has been held as under: "To finally conclude, it has to be held that the terminus from which the insured is entitled to be indemnified and reimbursed for the loss covered by the insurers is the very date of the loss and the arising of the cause of action, therefor. Inevitably a reasonable time must be taken for the quantification and determination of such loss. However, when so determined the relief must necessarily relate back to the date of loss itself and not later."
Faced with the above ratio, and the confirmed view of this Commission in II (1991) CPJ 429 = 1991 CPC 600 Kohinoor Carpets, Panipat & Ors. v. Mr. Rajinder Arora'', that the State Commissions are bound by their own decisions on question of law, Mr. Chhibber, the learned Counsel for the respondent had attempted a flanking movement. The submission was that the aforesaid ratio has been whittled down by the recent observations of the National Commission in I (1992) CPJ 313 (NC) = 1993(1) Consumer Claims Journal 331 ''S. Vellinayagam & Co. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.'' On the basis of the passing observations when granting discretionary relief by the National Commission, it was submitted that either the insured is eligible for compensation by interest within a period of three months when the Insurance Company becomes seized of the claim or even still later from three months after the submission of the report of the Surveyors i.e. the 4th of November, 1986 in the said case.
WHILST the aforesaid submission might bring some credit to the ingenuity to Mr. Chhibber, it appears to us that the same is inherently fallacious. We are unable to construe the observation in the afore-mentioned case whilst granting discretionary relief on the particular facts and the dates of the said case as a conclusive ratio which fixes the terminus for the grant of interest. In appraising the said submission one has to recall the celebrated dictum of Lord Halsbury in ''Quinn v. Letham'' 1901 Appeal Cases 495 that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides and not for what may possibly flow there from and further that it is the ratio decided of a case and not every observation in a judgment which is binding. That view has been reiterated by the Apex Court on innumerable occasions and it suffices to refer S.S. Mishra''s case in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 643 where it was stated that it is idle to build an argument on every passing observation and it is only the ratio of a case which is relevant.
THAT the National Commission was not laying down any inflexible terminus for the computation of interest is evident from the two observations in ''S. Vellinayagam & Co. v. New India Assurance Company Limited'' (supra) which deserve notice in extenso: "In equity, therefore, the Insurance Companies must compensate the insured for settling claims beyond a reasonable period. We feel that it should be possible, where there are no disputes to settle the claim within a period of three months when the Insurance Company become seized of the claim."
And again : "The interest will start in this case three months after the submission of the report of the Surveyor i.e. from 4th of November, 1986 on the amounts due from time to time."
The aforesaid observations have then to be viewed against the conclusion of the National Commission in ''Col. Bhim Singh v. Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.'' (supra) in the under-mentioned terms : "We, therefore, order as under : (1) Interest should be paid to the complainant insured at 18% per annum from 4 weeks after submission of his claim till the 18th August, 1991 when the claim was paid. (2) A sum of Rs. 10,000/- should be paid to the complainant for his travelling expenses, boarding and lodging as against Rs. 1 lakh claimed by him."
The afore-mentioned grant of interest expressly at 18% takes care of the somewhat specious argument also raised by Mr. Chhibber that the interest has to be granted variably on the current rate of lending as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time.
IT is manifest from the above that the crucial issue in this context has not yet been in terms focussed upon by the National Commission and the interest has been granted by way of compensation only depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We are, therefore, wholly unable to agree with Mr. Chhibber that the ratio of the decision in ''Girdhari Lal Bansal of Chandigarh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another'' (supra) stands in any way eroded. In fact the matter deserves to be finally settled by the National Commission taking into consideration the view already expressed by this Commission in the case aforesaid. For the fore-going reasons, whilst following the ratio in Girdhari Lal Bansal''s case, we allow the present appeal with costs (which are assessed at Rs. 500/- only) and direct that the respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 18% on the awarded sum of Rs. 69,730/- with effect from the very date of the loss till the date of its realisation. The computed amounts shall be tendered within one month from today, failing which compliance will be enforced by the District Forum, Ambala under Section 27 of the Act. Appeal allowed with costs.