NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2862 OF 2008
(From the order dated 13.5.2008 in Appeal No. 541/2007 of the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh)

M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

A Company incorporated under the Companies Act,
having its Registered Office at
Peninsula Corporate Park,
Nicholas Piramal Tower, 9th Floor,
Ganpathrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai 400 013 and Zonal Office at
1st Floor, Barjeye Towers, Community Centre,
New Friends Colony,
New Delhi 110 065
Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP)
Versus
M/s. Balaji Medicos,
SCO No. 355, Sector 32,
Chandigarh, through its Proprietor
Shri Kewal Krishan

Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner

Mr. Anjalli Bansall, Advocate

For the Respondent

Mr. Vijay Kr. Mangla, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON 12th July, 2013

ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party

against the order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) in

Appeal No. 541/2007 M/s. Balaji Medicos Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance
Co. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing
complaint was set aside.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was doing
business of sale of drugs and pharmaceuticals as a wholesaler and retailer at
shop Nos. 2 & 3, Iron Market, Sector 29, Chandigarh and was also running
retail business at Sector 32, Chandigarh under the name and style of M/s.
Balaji Medicos. Complainant took insurance policy for the goods lying at its
godown in Sector 29 for Rs.10 lakhs from OP No. 1/petitioner which was valid
from 18.10.2003 to 17.10.2004. On account of heavy rains on the intervening
night of 2/3-8-2004, drugs and medicines stored in the godown were
damaged, as water had entered into godown. Complainant informed to the
OP and submitted claim of Rs.10,08,126.20. OP appointed assessor to
assess the loss and at the instance of surveyor, complainant revised claim
and lodged claim of Rs.9,08,846/-. OP sent cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- on
26.10.2004 towards full and final settlement, which was received by the
complainant under protest. After legal notice, OP did not release payment of
Rs.3,08,313/- and in such circumstances, alleging deficiency on the part of
OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested
complaint and submitted that stocks of Sector 29 as well as Sector 32 were
damaged. Due to rains, surveyor assessed loss of Rs.6,00,533/- for the
stocks lying in Sector 32 and this amount was paid to the complainant as full
and final settlement and prayed dismissal of complaint. Learned District
Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which,
appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by the impugned order against
which, this revision petition has been filed.

3.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as the amount was
accepted by the complainant in full and final satisfaction of the claim, learned
District Forum rightly dismissed complaint. It was further submitted that
stocks of godown of Sector 29 were only insured and as per survey report,
payment of assessed loss had been made; even then learned State
Commission had committed error in allowing appeal for rest of the amount;
hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the
other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned State
Commission after elaborate discussion has rightly allowed complaint and
order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law,
which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5.
First question to be decided by this Commission is; whether
complainant accepted cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- towards full and final
settlement of the claim, or not. Complainant in para 10 of the complaint has
clearly stated that cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- has been received by the
complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim on 26.10.04. It
appears that later on by hand and was received under protest has been
inserted.
Affidavit in support of this complaint has also been filed by the
complainant and para 10 of the affidavit does not depict receipt of payment
under protest. In such circumstances, it can very well be held that cheque of
Rs.6,00,533/- was received by complainant towards full and final settlement to
the claim. OP/petitioner has clearly mentioned in paragraph 10 of its reply
before District Forum that complainant has received aforesaid amount as full

and final settlement of the claim. Thus, it becomes clear that complainant
after receiving Rs.6,00,533/- on 26.10.2004 towards full and final settlement of
the claim issued legal notice to the OP for release of rest of the amount and
filed Complainant No.274/05. Ld. Counsel for the respondent could not
apprise the date, when legal notice was given for release of rest of amount
and on which date complaint was filed. Perusal of complaint case number
reveals that complaint might have been filed in mid of year 2005, whereas
complainant received cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- on 26.10.04. Filing complaint
after many months and that too without pleading, coercion, fraud, undue
influence, etc., it cannot be believed that amount was received under protest.
Once the amount is received towards full and final settlement of the claim,
complaint for rest of the amount is not maintainable, as held by Honble Apex
Court in JT 1999 (6) SC 23 United India Insurance V. Ajmer Singh Cotton
& Gen. Mills & Ors. etc. and (2000) SCC 334 New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Vs.
Sri Venkata Padmavathi R&B Rice Mill. Ld. State Commission has
committed error in allowing complaint, though, complainant received amount
towards full and final satisfaction of the claim.
6.
As far value of stocks lying in the godown in Sector 29 are concerned,
surveyor has clearly mentioned in its survey report that goods worth
Rs.7,39,230/- was lying in Sector 29 and goods worth Rs.3,14,270/- was lying
in shop situated in Sector 32. Cross-examination of Mr. Shiv Kumar,
Chartered Accountant of complainant clearly reveals that Annexure P-8 was
the consolidated statement of Sector 32 and Sector 29, which was signed by
him as well as by proprietor of complainant firm. Closing stock of both the
places was of Rs.10,53,500/-.
In such circumstances, learned State
Commission has committed error in holding that closing stock of Sector 29
was worth Rs.10,61,150/- and allowing appeal of the complainant.
7.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that, as
complainant had accepted payment towards full and final settlement of the
claim and failed to prove stock worth Rs.10,61,150/- in godown of Sector 29,
learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint and learned State
Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and impugned order is
liable to set aside.
8.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the
respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 13.5.08 passed by Ld. State
Commission in Appeal No. 541/07 M/s. Balaji Medicos Vs. Tata AIG Gen.
Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and order of District Forum dismissing
complaint is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER

..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA )
MEMBER

Ads not by this site

Ads not by this site