NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusSEHTIA SHOES

                              (2008] 3 S.C.R. 451


                  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.                      A
                                       v.
                               SEHTIA SHOES
                      (Civil Appeal No. 1602 of 2008)
                            FEBRUARY 26, 2008
                                                                       B
            [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

              Consumer Protection:
               Shopkeeper insurance policy - Respondent-insured
         lodged claim and received amount in settlement thereof - C
         Thereafter lodged consumer complaint seeking further
         amount on ground that he had signed the said settlement
         under coercion - District Forum allowed the complaint - Order
         upheld by both State Commission and National Commission
..       - On appeal, held: Filing of complaint was not barred; but it D
         had to be proved that the settlement was signed under coercion
         - This relevant factor was not specifically considered by any
         of the fora below - Matter remitted to District Forum for fresh
         consideration.
              Respondent had obtained a shopkeeper insurance E
         policy. The insured articles got destroyed in fire.
         Respondent lodged insurance claim and received a sum
         of Rs.2.72 lacs in full and final settlement of the claim. But
     •   thereafter he lodged a complaint before the District
         Consumer Forum contending that his insurance claim F
         was Rs. 9 lacs and hence he should be idemnified to the
         extent of Rs. 9 lacs less Rs.2.72 lacs. Respondent alleged
         that the so called settlement was signed by him under
         coercion. Appellant objected to the complaint stating that
         since the Respondent had accepted the amount of G
         Rs.2.72 lacs without any protest, no further claim survived
         and the complaint was not maintainable. The District
         Forum allowed the complaint and awarded a sum of
         Rs.4.95 lacs. The order was upheld by the State
                                       451                              H
    452       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 3 S.C.R.   ..

A Commission as well as the National Commission.
        In appeal to this Court, the Appellant contended that
  though a claim can be entertained even when there is a
  settlement to receive a particular amount, yet the same is
  subject to the condition that the earlier settlement was
B obtained under coercion and I or was not on account of
  free will. The Appellant submitted that in the instant case
  this vital aspect was lost sight of by all the consumer fora
  below.
          Allowing the appeal, the Court
c
       HELD: Filing of a complaint is not barred; but it has
  to be proved that agreement to accept a particular amount
  was on account of coercion. In the instant case, this
  relevant factor has not been considered specifically by
D the District Forum, State Commission and the National
  Commission. Though plea of coercion was taken by
  claimant-respondent, same was refuted by the appellant.
  There is no dispute that the discharge voucher had been
  signed by the respondent. There has to be an adjudication
E as to whether the discharge voucher was signed
  voluntarily or under coercion. The matter is remitted to
  the District Forum for fresh consideration. [Para 8]
  [456-E-G]
        United India Insurance. v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General
F Mills and Ors. (1999) 6 sec 400 - relied on.
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1602
    of 2008.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.2005 of the
G National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
  Delhi in Revision Petition No. 29 of 2005.
          Joy Basu and B.K. Satija for the Appellant.
          Gagan Gupta (for M/s. Saharya & Co.) for the Respondent.
H         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. SEHTIA                  453
                     SHOES [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

                 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave gr;rnted.                     A
                 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the
            National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short
            'National Commission'). The National Commission by the
            impugned order dismissed the revision petition filed by the
            appellant questioning correctness of the order passed by the B
    "       Consumer District Forum, Hissar (in short 'District Forum') and
            State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in
            short 'State Commission').
                 3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass.         c
'                 Claim was lodged by the respondent who had obtained a
            shopkeeper insurance policy of the appellant company on
            15.7.2001. A claim was lodged with the appellant stating that
            on account of fire insured articles got destroyed. The Surveyors
            and Loss Assessors assessed the net loss at Rs.2,82,301/-. It D
        .   is the case of the appellant that respondent without demur
            accepted the sum of Rs.2,72,301/- in full and final settlement .
            and accordingly payment of Rs.2,72,301/-wasimade. Thereafter
            a complaint was lodged before the District Forum claiming that
            his claim was Rs.9 lacs and he should be indemnified to the E
            extent of Rs.9 lacs less Rs.2, 72,301 /-which had been received
            by him. Appellant objected to the complaint stating that since
            the respondent had accepted the amount without any protest
            no further claim survives and the complaint was not maintainable.
        .
~
                  4. The District Forum noted the rival stand including the F
            stand of the respondent that the so called settlement was signed
            by him under coercion and, therefore, the claim petition was
            maintainable. The District Forom awarded a sum of
            Rs.4,95,000/-. In appeal, the State Commission dismissed the
            appeal after noticing the rival stands which were reiteration of G
            the stands taken before the District Forum. A revision, as noted
    1       above, was filed before the National Commission which
            dismissed the same holding as follows:
                 "In our view, the impugned order passed by the State
                                                                               H
    454       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008) 3 S.C.R.
                                                                         •
A         Commission does not call for any interference. The District
          Forum as well as State Commission considered the
          various statements including Income-tax and Sales Tax
          returns as well as statements submitted to the bank and
          also surveyor's report. In our view, the assessment by the
8         surveyor in the present case cannot be accepted because
          surveyor has observed that even though the shoes were
                                                                             •
          affected by water and smoke, yet the loss would be only
          30% and thereafter reduced the assessment of loss, in
          our view this was unjustified.
C         Hence revision petition is dismissed."
                                                                                 ,
        5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though
  a claim can be entertained even when there is a settlement to
  receive a particular amount, yet the same is subject to the
  condition that the earlier settlement was obtained under coercion
D and/or was not on account of free will. In the instant case it is
  submitted this vital aspect has been lost sight of by the Distric_t
  Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission.
        6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent
E submitted that immediately after the so called settlement was
  arrived at grievance, was lodged with the authority stating that
  settlement was not free and fair.
        7. In United India Insurance. v. Ajmer Singh Cotton &
    General Mills and Ors. (1999 (6) SCC 400), it was, inter alia,
F observed as follows:
          "4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
          perused the record. It is true that the award of interest is
          not specifically authorised under the Consumer Protection
          Act, 1986 (hereinafter called "the Act") but in view of our
G         judgment in Sovintorg (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of India,
          Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1992 decided on 11.8.1999, we
          are of the opinion that in appropriate cases the forum and
          the commissions under the Act are authorised to grant
          reasonable interest under the facts and circumstances of
H         each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher
    NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. SEHTIA                455
;          SHOES [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

      would not always deprive the consumer from preferring         A
      claim with respect to the deficiency in service or
      consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in
      default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the
      discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to
      satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that     B
      such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from
      him under the circumstances which can be termed as
      fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by
      misrepresentation or the like. If in a given case the
      consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the       c
      discharge voucher was obtained by fraud,
      misrepresentation, undue influence or the like, coercive
      bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority
      before whom the complaint is made would be justified in
      granting appropriate relief. However (sic so), where such     D
      discharge voucher is proved to have been obtained under
      any of the suspicious circumstances noted hereinabove,
      the Tribunal or the commission would be justified in
      granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of
      each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher
      and acceptance of the insurance claim would not estop         E
      the insured from making further claim from the insurer but
      only under the circumstances as noticed earlier. The
      Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and Commissions
      constituted under the Act shall also have the power to
      fasten liability against the insurance companies              F
      notwithstanding the issuance of the discharge voucher.
      Such a claim cannot be termed to be fastening the liability
      against the insurance companies over and above the
      liabilities payable under the contract of insurance
      envisaged in the policy of insurance. The claim preferred     G
      regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be
      based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the
      provisions of Section 14 of the Act.
      5. In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were
                                                                    H
    456       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 3 S.C.R.
                                                                         ..
A         admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had
          not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence,
          misrepresentation or the like. In the absence of pleadings
          and evidence the State Commission was justified in
          dismissing their complaints. The National Commission
8         however granted relief solely on the ground of delay in the
          settlement of claim under the policies. The mere delay of
          a couple of months would not have authorised the National           •
          Commission to grant relief particularly when the insurer
          had not complained of such a delay at the time of
          acceptance of the insurance amount under the policy. We
c         are not satisfied with the reasoning of the National
          Commission and are of the view that the State Commission
          was justified in dismissing the complaints though on
          different reasonings. The observations of the State
          Commission in Jivajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. New India
D         Assurance Co. Ltd, OP No. 52 of 1991 decided on
          28.11.1991, shall always be construed in the light of our
          findings in this judgment and the mere receipt of the amount
          without any protest would not always debar the claimant
          from filing the complaint."
E
        8. Filing of a complaint is, therefore, not barred; but it has
  to be proved that agreement to accept a particular amount was
  on account of coercion. In the instant case, this relevant factor
  has not been considered specifically by the District Forum, State
  Commission and the National Commission. Though plea of
F coercion was taken by claimant-respondent, same was refuted
  by the appellant. There is no dispute that the discharge voucher
  had been signed by the respondent. There has to be an
  adjudication as to whether the discharge voucher was signed
  voluntarily or under coercion. We remit the matter to the District
G Forum for fresh consideration. It would do well to dispose of the
  matter as early as practicable, preferably by the end of
  September, 2008.                                                       •
          9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
H 8.8.8.                                            Appeal allowed.