RAJEEV TRIPATHI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Appeal Nos. 863/95 and 917/95, the original complainant before the District Forum has filed the present petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act'). The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respective parties against the order dated 28.4.1995 passed by the District Consumer Forum Allahabad in complaint case No. 22/94 by which order the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and had directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 32500 along with 10% interest w.e.f. 7.11.1993 till the date of payment besides Rs. 200 as cost of the proceedings. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and set aside the order passed by the District Forum and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant - petitioner. Hence this petition.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Arvind Garg, Advocate; learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Ray, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The complaint was filed by the complainant for recovery of the balance amount of insurance claim, he having already received a sum of Rs.1,07,500 towards the settlement of his claim in respect of an insured motor vehicle (jeep) which was stolen on 29.4.1991 during the currency of the insurance. The District Forum held that the said amount received by the complainant was not in full and final settlement and discharge of the claim and, therefore, going by the reports of the earlier surveyor, partly allowed the claim.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would assail the order passed by the State Commission as not based on the correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and material brought on record. The basis of this submission is that the signature of the complainant - petitioner were obtained on a printed form of blank receipt which the complainant signed under coercion or duress inasmuch as the Insurance Company was not prepared even to pay the said amount to the complainant if he did not give a discharge. In any case it is submitted that amount of Rs.1,07,500 was offered by the complainant after a delay of more than two years from the date of the accident and the complainant was left with no option except to accept the said amount. On. the other hand, contention of learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that complainant being a literate person knowing all the implications of signing a receipt and discharge voucher cannot be allowed to take up the belated plea that the said amount was received by the complainant under duress or coercion. In support of his contention, Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court: