Ramdas Sales Corporation V National Insurance Company LTD

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Wednesday, July 26, 2023

Printed For: YASHASVI 1120202148, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 785
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

(BEFORE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER AND DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER)
Ramdas Sales Corporation G-10, Mewad, E.S. Patanwala Complex,

Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086 …
Complainant(s);
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. And Anr. New India
Assurance Building, 87, M.G. Road, Mumbai-400001
M/s. C.P. Mehta & Co. Edena Building (4th Floor), 97 Marine Lines,
Mumbai-400020 … Opp. Party(s).
Consumer Case No. 79 of 2007
Decided on February 10, 2016
For the Complainant: Mr. Dalip Mehra, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Mr. Nikunj Dayal, Advocate
ORDER
V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (Oral):— The complainant firm, which is engaged in
distribution of pharmaceutical products obtained an insurance policy in respect of the
stock stored in its godown in Building No. 38, Gala Nos. 1 & 2, Arihant Complex, Near
Kopar Bus Stop, Bhiwandi, District Thane of Maharashtra, to the extent of Rs. 6 Crores.
The policy was valid for the period from 13.05.2005 to 12.05.2006 and inter-alia
covered the stock against loss or damage due to storm, cyclone, flood inundation etc.
On 26.07.2005 heavy torrential rains flooded the area in which the godown of the
complainant was situated and as a result of the said flooding/inundation, stock worth
about Rs. 6.2 Crores, which the complainant had stored in above referred godown got
damaged/destroyed. On intimation being given to the insurance company, a surveyor
was appointed to assess the loss sustained by the complainant. The surveyor inter-alia
reported that goods worth Rs. 4,62,47,243.61 had been damaged and authorized
disposal of the said damaged goods. The remaining goods worth Rs. 1,37,52,914.72
were reported to be undamaged. The damaged goods were destroyed through Mumbai
Waste Management Ltd., as per the procedure prescribed by Food and Drug
Administration of Maharashtra. The surveyor however felt that the value of the stock at
risk was Rs. 10,21,44,787/-, which included the stock in transit and receivables from
the market. Based upon that the surveyor opined that the risk had been under insured
and therefore only a sum of Rs. 2,52,54,735/- was payable to the complainant. The
insurer based upon the report of the surveyor offered the aforesaid amount of Rs.
2,52,54,735/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of its claim. The case of
the complainant is that since they were in great financial stress at that time and under
pressure to pay to their creditors and the insurance company had refused to release
the aforesaid amount without taking a full and final discharge from them, they had no
option but to execute a discharge voucher accepting the aforesaid amount in full and
final settlement of their claim. On receipt of the said discharge voucher, the insurance
company released the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,52,54,735/- to the complainant. The
complainant is now before this Commission seeking payment of the balance amount of
Rs. 2,31,42,576/- along with interest and compensation.
2. The complaint has been resisted by the insurance company primarily on two
grounds, the first being that having accepted the amount of Rs. 2,52,54,735/- in full
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and final settlement of its claim, the complainant is estopped from claiming any
further amount from the insurer. The second plea taken by the opposite party is that
not only the stock kept in the godown but also the stock in transit as well as the
amount receivable from the market were required to be taken into consideration, for
the purpose of deciding whether there was under any insurance or not and if the stock
in transit and the market receivable are added to the actual stock kept in the godown,
there was under insurance to the extent of 41.26% and therefore the payment made
to the complainant was justified, after making deduction on account of under
insurance.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has placed before us a Circular No.
IRDA/NL/CIR/Misc/173/09/2015 dated 24.09.2015 issued by Insurance Regulatory
Development Authority of India (IRDA) to all the General Insurance Companies, with
regard to the use of discharge vouchers in settlement of claim. The said circular reads
as under:—
“The Insurance Companies are using ‘discharge voucher’ or “settlement
intimation voucher” or in some other name, so that the claim is closed and does not
remain outstanding in their books. However, of late, the Authority has been
receiving complaints from aggrieved policyholders that the said instrument of
discharge voucher is being used by the insurers in the judicial fora with the plea
that the full and final discharge given by the policyholders extinguish their rights to
contest the claim before the Courts.
While the Authority notes that the insurers need to keep their books of accounts
in order, it is also necessary to note that insurer shall not use the instrument of
discharge voucher as a means of estoppel against the aggrieved policy holders
when such policy holder approaches judicial fora.
Accordingly insurers are hereby advised as under:
Where the liability and quantum of claim under a policy is established, the
insurers shall not withhold claim amounts. However, it would be clearly understood
that execution of such vouchers does not foreclose the rights of policy holder to
seek higher compensation before any judicial fora or any other fora established by
law.
All insurers are directed to comply with the above instructions.”
It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that in view of the
aforesaid circular, which is binding upon the insurer, the plea of estoppel cannot be
pressed by it.
4. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the aforesaid
circular cannot be given retrospective effect by applying it to the present complaint
particularly when there is nothing in the circular to give retrospective effect to the
directions contained therein. It is also submitted on behalf of the insurer that since the
said circular was not issued at the time discharge voucher was obtained and payment
was made to the complainant, there was no deficiency on their part in rendering
services to the complainant. This is also the submission of the learned counsel for the
insurer that the insurance companies are making representation to IRDA to withdraw
the aforesaid circular and are also contemplating legal action to challenge the said
circular. He also submits that the circular issued by IRDA cannot supersede the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject United India Insurance v. Ajmer
Singh Cotton & General Mills [(1999) 6 SCC 400] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Sehtia Shoes [(2008) 5 SCC 400]. We, however, find no merit in the contention that
the said circular is contrary to the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. If the Insurance Company is aggrieved from the aforesaid circular, a consumer
forum is not the appropriate forum to challenge its validity and so long as the said
circular remains in force, the insurer, in our opinion is precluded from taking the plea
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of estoppel on account of execution of the discharge voucher by the insurer.

5. Section 14(1) of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority Act, 1999
provides that IRDA shall have they duty to regulate, promote and ensure orderly
growth of the insurance business and re-insurance business. Sub Section (2) of the
aforesaid Section provides that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions
contained in sub-section (1), the powers and functions of the Authority include
protection of the interests of the policy holders in the matter of settlement of
insurance claims.
6. Section 34 of the Insurance Act, reads as under:—
“Power of the [Authority] to issue directions.— (1) Where the [Authority] is
satisfied that—
(a) in the public interest; or
(b) to prevent the affairs of any insurer being conducted in a manner detrimental
to the interests of the policy-holders or in a manner prejudicial to the interests
of the insurer; or
(c) generally to secure the proper management of any insurer,
it is necessary to issue directions to insurers generally or to any insurer in
particular, he may, from time to time, issue such directions as [it] deems fit, and
the insurers or the insurer, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such
directions:
Provided that no such direction shall be issued to any insurer in particular unless
such insurer has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(2) The [Authority] may, on representation made to [it] or on [its] own motion,
modify or cancel any direction issued under sub-section (1), and in so modifying or
cancelling any direction, may impose such conditions as [it] thinks fit, subject to
which the modification or cancellation shall have effect.]”
Therefore it was within the competence of the authority to issue appropriate directions
with respect to the settlement of insurance claims by the insurance companies if it
was satisfied that such directions were necessary in the public interest or to prevent
the affairs of the insurance companies being conducted in a manner detrimental to the
interest of the policy holders.
7. In any case, so long as the aforesaid circular is not challenged and quashed, it is
binding upon the Insurance Company and the validity of the circular cannot be
questioned before the consumer forum.
8. We find no merit in the contention that the aforesaid circular cannot be applied
in a pending consumer complaint. The very fact that IRDA decided to issue such a
direction implies that the practice adopted by the insurers to insist upon execution of a
discharge voucher in full and final settlement of the claim before releasing the
payment approved by it was found to be objectionable by the Authority and that is
why it had to issue direction requiring the insurers, not to use the instrument of
discharge voucher as a mean of estoppel against the aggrieved policy holders when
they approach a judicial fora. As a result of the aforesaid direction issued by IRDA, the
plea of estoppel taken by the opposite party is no more available to it, the said plea
being contrary to the direction contained in the circular. Therefore, in our opinion, once
the aforesaid circular is issued, it is not open to the insurer to contend at the time of
hearing that having executed the discharge voucher in full and final settlement of its
claim the complainant is estopped from filing a consumer complaint claiming
additional payment from the insurer in respect of the claim subject matter of the
discharge voucher. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider the plea of estoppel
taken by the opposite party.
9. Coming to the merits of the case, the insurance policy to the extent it is relevant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reads as under:—
“The property is situated at:- Building No. 38, Gala Nos. 1 & 2, Arihant Complex,
Near Kopar Bus Stop, Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane-421302.
ON STOCK OF PHARMACEUTICALS
DRUGS, COSMETICS AND PACKING
Description of Risk:
MATERIALS AND OTHER STOCK LOCATED
IN GODOWN AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS”
10. It is crystal clear from a bare perusal the above referred extracts from the
insurance policy that the said policy covered only the goods which had been stored in
Building No. 38, Gala Nos. 1 & 2, Arihant Complex, Near Kopar Bus Stop, Bhiwandi,
Dist. Thane. Neither the stock in transit nor the market receivables were insured by
the opposite party. Therefore, there can be absolutely no justification at all for the
insurer to take into account the goods in transit and the market receivables for the
purpose of deciding whether there was any under insurance on the part of the
complainant or not. Admittedly, if the goods in transit and market receivables are
excluded, the value of the goods at risks was only Rs. 6,20,00,000/- as against the
insured value of Rs. 6 crores. The complainant has no objection to an appropriate
deduction being made, on account of the value of the goods at risks being Rs. 20 lakhs
more than the insured value of Rs. 6 crores.
11. Admittedly, the total amount payable to the complainant, after making
adjustments for under insurance to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs, comes to Rs.
4,18,69,233/-. The opposite party having paid only Rs. 2,52,54,735/-, the
complainant is entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 1,66,14,498/- from the insurer.
12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the opposite party is directed to pay an
amount of Rs. 1,66,14,498/- to the complainant along with interest on that amount @
9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the said amount is paid. In
the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. The
payment in terms of this order shall be made within six weeks. The complaint stands
disposed of accordingly.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Ramdas Sales Corporation V National Insurance Company LTD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramdas Sales Corporation V National Insurance Company LTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, July 26, 2023

2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 785

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

Ramdas Sales Corporation G-10, Mewad, E.S. Patanwala Complex,

of estoppel on account of execution of the discharge voucher by the insurer.

You might also like