UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GURBACHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party in the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum. Complaint was for award of interest on an insurance claim on the death of husband of the respondent. Alla Singh, husband of the respondent died on April 1,1991. He was having insurance cover with the petitioner for Rs. 7,45,000/-. It would appear the claim was settled and payment of Rs. 7,45,000/- made on July 14,1993. Petitioner gave a receipt for having received the amount in full and final settlement of her claim. This is a printed receipt obtained by the petitioner while making the payment. On the receipt it was not written that the respondent received payment under any protest. However, it is finding that she did protest by writing letter to the petitioner that she should have been paid interest as claimed was denied for two years.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that once full and final settlement receipt is given in discharge of any claim of the respondent against the petitioner, it could not be said that there was any deficiency in service and complaint could not have been filed before the District Forum. Petitioner however, referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors., II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC) = VI (1999) SLT 590 = AIR 1999 SC 3027, to contend that it could not be always so and the circumstances of each case has to be seen. Stand of the respondent would, however, be tenable only if she proves that discharge voucher was obtained by fraud or coercion etc. For two years insurance claim to the respondent in respect of two insurance policies of her husband had admittedly been due to her. It could be said that the receipt which is printed receipt was obtained by exercise of coercion by the petitioner from the respondent. This of course is fortified by the fact that respondent had been protesting by writing letters and claiming interest. Moreover, it also does not appear to us why claim was denied to the respondent for two years. It was certain a case of harassment and inconvenience to the widow. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have returned the finding of deficiency in service by the petitioner-insurance Company and the fact of respondent protesting for non-payment of interest which in the circumstances of the case was legally due to her. District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 7,45,000/- w.e.f. 1.6.1991 till the date of payment. Cost of Rs. 1,100/- was also imposed. Two months' time for the petitioner to settle the claim was considered sufficient. Death occurred on 1.4.1991 and the interest was payable from 1.6.1991.