NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus SEHTIA SHOES

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 26-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
• 
(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. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
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 
B 
appellant questioning correctness of the order passed by the 
" 
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 comp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.