STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

Rajesh Bansal son of Shri Ramesh Kumar,aged 47 years, Sole proprietor M/s Genuine Agencies, Showroom No.22, Near Jai Mata Marble, Chandigarh-Zirakpur Highway, Zirakpur, Punjab and resident of Flat No.605, Society No.83, Sector-20, Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                                                       ...  Appellant.

                                               Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, having its office at SCO No.357-358, Ist Floor, Sector-35-B, Chandigarh-160035.                                                                                                                                                               ..... Respondent

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as amended from time to time, against order dated 13.07.2022 passed by  District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.607/2022.

BEFORE:      MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh. Vikas Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

                      Sh.Dharam Pal Gupta, Advocate for  the Respondent.

 PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.07.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the complaint bearing No.CC/607/2022, at the preliminary stage, being devoid of any merit. 

     2.              Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant that he is earning his livelihood by selling batteries, invertors, mobiles, Home VRS etc.  in and around Tricity under the name and style of “Genuine Agencies”, of which the complainant is the sole proprietor. The complainant had occupied two premises on rent for warehouse purpose.  The complainant in order to avail credit facility from the bank had mortgaged the stock against which Union Bank of India had   provided credit facility to the complainant.  In order to secure the stock kept at the warehouse, the complainant had purchased an insurance policy from the Opposite Party which covered Burglary, theft, fire etc. The Policy in question was effective for the period from 3.4.2018 to 2.4.2019 for the sum assured of Rs.2.50 Crores.  It is alleged that on the intervening night of 7^th & 8^th May,2018, a burglary took place at the premises/warehouse of the complainant and the stocks of goods i.e. batteries, inverters etc. were found to be stolen.  Accordingly  insurance claim was lodged with the Opposite Party  for indemnification of loss of  Rs.12,29,461/- plus GST.  The insurance company appointed   insurance surveyors and loss assessors    to inspect the site and stock and further to assess the loss. The opposite party ultimately approved the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the assessed loss amount and offered  to settle the claim at Rs.8,22,244/- instead of Rs.12,29,461/- plus GST. The complainant, who had suffered financial loss due to theft and claim was already delayed, was left with no other option under the compelling circumstances, to accept the claim of Rs.8,22,244/-. The grouse of the complainant is that under immense pressure, threat & influence, he was forced to accept the claim of Rs.8,22,244/- and thus the settlement made by opposite party is false, arbitrary & illegal and he is entitled for reimbursement of balance claim amount of Rs.5,59,360/- plus GST.  It is  further averred that after illegally obtaining mail from the complainant, the opposite party disbursed the amount on 18.7.2020 and the complainant without any delay immediately protested and objected to the deductions made by the Opposite Party by filing complaint on 22.7.2020 at its online portal. However, the Opposite Party vide mail dated 23.7.2020 communicated to the complainant that the claim was settled in terms of the consent given by the complainant. When all efforts made by the complainant failed to get any tangible result, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission claiming balance amount of Rs.5,59,360/- plus GST and other allied reliefs.

     3.                 The Ld. District Commission, while dismissing the complaint in limine, observed as under ;

“ As per Annexure C-24, the opposite party sent an e-mail dated 16.07.2020 seeking the consent of the complainant for full and final settlement amount of Rs.8,22,244/- under the claim in question at the earliest, to which the complainant also gave consent with a condition that payment in question need to be made within three days. As per Annexure C-25, the payment was also made on 17.07.2020. The contents of the complaint as well as Annexure C-23 & C-24 abundantly make it clear that the matter in question was voluntarily agreed by the complainant and so was given the consent for the same. Now we are of the considered opinion that being valid and genuine documents of settlement on record, we stop the complainant to challenge the genuineness of the settlement arrived at between the complainant and the opposite party. So, the complaint being devoid of any merit is dismissed at preliminary stage.

                 So far as allegation of the complainant that consent was taken by opposite party by blackmailing him under immense pressure, threat and influence, to prove the same, there is no evidence on record as such and the same can be dealt in the Civil Court only and not the Consumer Court.”

4.                 Aggrieved against the  aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellant /complainant.  

5                   We have heard Counsel for parties, and have gone through the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

6.                  The grouse of the appellant is that the Ld. District Commission did not consider the documents placed on record and the fact that the appellant lodged protest immediately after receiving the amount.  It is  contended that even after accepting the partial claim, the insured can claim the remaining amount which was disallowed by the Insurer.  It is further contended that the insured cannot be made to suffer at the hands of the insurer and cannot be made to accept partial claim only inspite of giving consent, which was given under compelling circumstances, beyond the control of the  insured.  It is further contended that the appellant had requested the respondent time and again to settle/release the claim amount but the respondent delayed the matter on one or the other reason and ultimately offered amount after making deductions without giving any proper justification. It was further contended that the respondent stated in its DDC note that there were some lapse on the part of the insured in protecting the premises in question  but did not disclose as to what were the lapses on the part of the appellant. Thus, the claim of the appellant was illegally settled at lower value and he was made to suffer huge loss. 

7.             Undisputedly the insurance company on 16.7.2020 sent email (Annexure C-24) to the appellant/insured stating as under ;

 “This is in reference to the above said claim. Kindly send us your consent for full & final settlement amount of Rs.8,22,244/- under the said claim at the earliest.”

               The appellant immediately on the same date replied through email as under;

               “It is OK from our side with this condition that payment will       be  made within three days.”

               In the above said email there appears no such coercion  or threat  given on behalf of the respondent/insurer. Rather  in the mail it was stated by the appellant that it was OK from his side with the condition that the payment be made within 3 days.   It clearly shows that the offer made by the respondent was accepted with the condition that the settled payment be made within three days. It was impliedly an counter offer on the part of the appellant which was accepted by the respondent and the settled amount of Rs.8,22,244/- was released vide UTR No.AXISCN0053973772 dated 17.7.2020. The respondent vide email dated 18.7.2020 intimated the appellant that as per consent, claim amount of Rs.8,22,244/- has been credited to his bank account.  The appellant has not given the name of the official of the respondent who had given any threat or exerted undue influence on him. It clearly shows that the claim of the appellant was duly considered and thereafter decision to offer particular amount was conveyed to the appellant and the same was accepted. The appellant has not produced any evidence with the complaint to prove that there was any pressure, threat, undue influence from the side of the insurer. The appellant could have replied to the email that he was entitled to more amount than what had been offered by the respondent. Simply because the claim was delayed and the appellant was having financial problem, it cannot be said that there was any threat or undue influence from the side of the respondent. The appellant, after receiving the settled amount, lodged a protest on 22.7.2020 at the online portal of the respondent. The insurance company replied vide email dated 23.7.2020 that the claim was settled at per terms and conditions of the policy on non-standard basis.

8.              Further as per Section 36(2)of the Consumer Protection Act,2019,  on receipt of a complaint made under Section 35, the District Commission has the jurisdiction to reject the complaint by providing an opportunity to the complainant of being heard. A perusal of the  file of Ld. Lower Commission reveals that certain documents were sought to be produced and arguments of the complainant’s Counsel  on maintainability of the complaint were heard. The Ld. Lower Commission rightly observed that the settlement of claim was arrived at between the parties on giving consent by the complainant/appellant and moreover there was no evidence to support the  plea  of blackmailing, threat, coercion, undue influence etc on the part of the respondent or any of its functionary. We are of the view that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and  that no case is  made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.

9.                    For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 10.            Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

11.               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.