INDEMNITY CONTRACT WITH

EXCEPTIONS
BUSINESS LAW

1527911
Donjo Joy

Introduction:
A Contract whereby one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by
the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of any other person, is called a
contract of indemnity. . Indemnity, in simple words, is protection against future loss.
The person who promises to save the other is called the Indemnitor or Indemnifier and
the person who is compensated is the Indemnitee, Indemnified or the indemnityholder. It is a contingent contract by nature. It may be express or implied.

CASE
Injunction
against the
Bank of
Alexandria
against the
foreign buyer
restraining
them from
receiving any
money.

SOURCE

FACT

http://indiankano
on.org/docfragme
nt/588000/?
formInput=cases
%20on
%20indemnity

It would not be correct to

say that so long as that
order stands, the Bank of
Alexandria would be under
an obligation to pay
without contestation the
amount agreed to be paid
under a letter of credit to
the foreign buyer. The
unilateral assertion of the
Bank of Alexandria that
under the Egyptian Law
they were under an
obligation to pay without
contestation would not be
decisive of the matter.

Osman Jamal
http://indiankano
And Sons Ltd. on.org/doc/11437
vs Gopal
65/
Purshottam on
19 July, 1928

JUDGEMENT

As long as order of this

Court stands restraining
the Bank of Alexandria
from making any
payment or the foreign
buyer from receiving
any payment, any
payment to be made or
attempted to be made
would be in violation of
the order of A. N. Sen,
J., dated the 28th
November 1967 as
mentioned hereinbefore
and that order is
binding on the Bank of
Alexandria until it is set
aside or lawfully
declared not binding.
In this case the plaintiff
The defendants
company is in liquidation
contend, firstly, that
and is represented by the
the plaintiffs have
Official Liquidator. By a
never become liable to
contract made in July 1925 the vendor, because
it was agreed inter alia that they acted only as
the plaintiff company
agents for disclosed
should act as commission
principals, namely, the
agents for the defendant
defendant firm, and
firm in the purchase and
therefore no right to
sale of hessian and
indemnity has arisen.
gunnies and that the
This argument seems
defendant firm would
to rest upon a
indemnify the plaintiff
misapprehension of
company against all losses fact. The plaintiffs
in respect of such
purchased through a
transactions. Pursuant
broker as principals and
thereto, on or about the
not as agents which
2nd December 1925, the
becomes evident upon
plaintiff company
perusal of the bought
purchased certain hessian
and sold notes.
from one Maliram
Consequently they
Ramjidas, which the
were liable to the
defendant firm failed to
vendor for breach of
pay for or take delivery of, the contract of sale.
with the result that the
goods were resold by the
vendor at less than the
contract price and he has
claimed the balance from
the plaintiff company.

HDFC Ergo
General
Insurance
Company
Limited v
Bhagchand
Saini S/o
Suvalal

2014 Indlaw
NCDRC 462 2015
(1) CPJ(NC) 206

Consequently the plaintiffs

now seek to recover this
sum from the defendants
under the aforesaid
indemnity, in addition to a
further sum for
commission which
otherwise they would have
received.
Consumer Protection
Insurance
Indian Contract Act, 1872,
s. 125 Theft of vehicle
Liability to pay
compensation Insurance
claim filed by
complainant/respondent
relating to theft of vehicle
was allowed on
'nonstandard' basis,
although there was delay
of 3 months in giving
intimation about theft to
Insurance
Company/petitioner On
appeal before State
Commission, said order
was upheld Hence, instant
revision Respondent
contended that contract of
insurance is contract of
indemnity and Insurance
Company is bound to
honour claim.

Held, the complainant

has not been able to
establish anywhere that
he gave intimation to
the Insurance Company
on the second day of
the theft. Further, it has
been mentioned in para
4 of the complaint that
the complainant had
provided all the
documents, certified
copy of registration
certificate and
insurance policy to
investigator of the
company, but the date
on which these
documents were given
has not been stated in
the complaint. Once the
policy has been issued
after charging the
premium, it is stated
that the said contract
has been made subject
to certain conditions. In
case, there is violation
of such conditions, such
violation has to be
taken into account,
while deciding the issue
of indemnity. The order
passed by the State
Commission in the
appeal filed by the
petitioner is quite
sketchy, vague and no
detailed reasons have
been given for agreeing
with the order of the
District Forum.

Gajanan
Moreshwar
Parelkar vs
Moreshwar
Madan Mantri
on 1 April,
1942

http://indiankano
on.org/doc/13610
99/

It seems that in the year

1934 the plaintiff entered
into an agreement with the
Municipal Corporation for
the City of Bombay for the
lease of a plot of land
bearing No. 226A of the
Dadar Matunga Estate for a
term of 999 years.
Thereupon the defendant
entered into possession of
the plot of land and
commenced to erect a
building thereon. The
materials for the
construction of the building
were supplied by one
Keshavdas Mohandas, and
the amount therefor
exceeded Rs. 5,000.

Nirmaljit
Singh Hoon vs
The State Of
West Bengal
And Anr on 6
September,
1972

http://indiankano
on.org/docfragme
nt/1379027/?
formInput=cases
%20on
%20indemnity

The Presidency Magistrate,

3rd Court, held by his order
,dated January 5, 1967 that
the receipt, if believed,
would establish
entrustment, it could not
be given "even its face
value", since Varma, the
central figure, had failed to
give evidence. Though in
England at that time, he
could have flown to India
for the purpose of giving
evidence. Besides,
Majumdar's evidence,
according to him,
contained "some points of
obvious absurdities", in

Complainant is not
entitled for any
compensation even on
'nonstandard' basis.
The orders passed by
the District Forum and
State Commission are,
therefore, set aside and
the consumer
complaint in question
stands dismissed.
Revision allowed.
The defendant be
ordered to procure from
the mortgagee a
release of the plaintiff
from all liability under
the deed of mortgage
and further charge and
also that the defendant
may be ordered to pay
into Court the sum
required to pay off the
whole amount due to
the mortgagee under
the mortgage and
further charge and that
the amount so brought
into Court be utilised
for the purpose of
paying off the
mortgage and further
charge.
Verma was not
examined during the
course of enquiry and
this fact resulted in
serious infirmity in the
evidence adduced by
the petitioner. As the
evidence of Varma was
not of a formal
character, his affidavit
could plainly be not
admitted in evidence.

V.M.
http://indiankano
Chockalingam on.org/doc/24218
Chettiar vs
1/
T.A.S.V.
Alagammai
Achi And Anr.
on 3 February,
1953

ADAMSON vs.
JARVIS [1827]
4 BING 66

https://kanwarn.w
ordpress.com/201
0/11/25/indemnit
y-under-indiancontract-act1872-part-2/

that Jaffray's insistence

that an indemnity bond
should
be Signed by
both Varma and Hoon
indicated that he could not
have parted with the share
certificates before Hoon
had signed 'that bond. The
case together with the
report went back to
the- Chief
'Presidency Magistrate.
In a suit for recovery of
certain money of the
plaintiff alleged to have
been deposited with
defendant 1, defendant 1
pleaded in his written
statement that the money
deposited with him was
really defendant 2's money
and not the plaintiff's and
that as the money had
been deposited on the
understanding that the
money was to be payable
to defendant 2's order,
defendant 1 Had already
obtained full discharge in
respect of the obligation
which the plaintiff sought
to enforce by the
adjustment of the said
money between defendant
2 and himself towards the
debts due by defendant 2
to defendant 1. There was
thereafter an application
made to the Court below to
enable defendant 1 to avail
himself of the third party
procedure provided under
Order 8-A, Civil P. C.
Adamson was an
auctioneer who was given
cattle by Jarvis to be sold
at an auction. Adamson
followed the instructions
and sold the cattle. But
Jarvis was not the owner of
the cattle. The real owner

The application having

been rejected by the
Court, defendant 1 has
come up in revision to
this Court.

Adamson carried out

Jarviss instructions and
was entitled to
presume that if
anything went wrong as
per instructions, he
would be indemnified.
Jarvis was ordered to

GAJAN
MORESHWAR
vs.
MORESHWAR
MADAN 1942
BOM 302

https://kanwarn.w
ordpress.com/201
0/11/25/indemnit
y-under-indiancontract-act1872-part-2/

Sassoons Vs
M.T. Ltd.,

http://indiankano
on.org/docfragme
nt/1022949/?
formInput=cases
%20on
%20indemnity

of the cattle sued Adams

for conversion and was
successful. Adamson had
to pay damages and he
then sued Jarvis to be
indemnified for the loss
that he suffered by way of
damages to be paid to the
real owner.
G Moreshwar got a plot in
Bombay for a long lease
period. He transferred the
lease to M Madan for a
limited period. M Madan
started construction over
the said plot and got his
supplies from a K D Mohan
Das. When Mohandas
asked for payment, the
defendant could not pay
up. Upon request of M
Madan, G Moreshwar
executed a mortgagee
deed in favor of K D Mohan
Das. Mohandas, the
supplier. Interest rate was
decided and G Moreshwar
put a charge over his
properties. A date was set
for the return of the
principal amount. M Madan
had agreed to pay the
principal amount, the
interest and to get the
mortgage deed released
before a certain date. M
Madan did not pay
anything to K D Mohan
Das; it was G Moreshwar
who paid some interest
The event of Sassoons
demanding from M.T. Ltd.
payment of Rs. 4, 50,000
the company could have
been called upon to pay
the amount forthwith by
M.T. Ltd., the company
agreed to indemnify
Sassoons for the amount
and gave the security
mentioned in the deed of

pay damages to
Adams.

The Privy Council did

not accept M Madans
stance that G
Moreshwar had suffered
no loss and thus could
not claim anything
under Sections 124 and
125. The Council held
that an indemnity
holder has rights other
than those mentioned
in the Sections above. If
the indemnity holder
has incurred a liability
and the liability is
absolute, he can turn to
the indemnifier to take
care of the liability and
pay it off. Thus, G
Moreshwar was entitled
to be indemnified by M
Madan against all
liability under the
mortgage and deed of
charge.

The legal effect of the

deed of mortgage
cannot be controlled in
any event by the
presence or absence of
entries the parties may
make or omit to make
in their books.

Kyzuna
Investments
Ltd v Ocean
Marine Mutual
Insurance
Assoc (Europe

Indiakanoon

Thor
Navigation Inc
v Ingosstrakh
Insurance
[2005]

Indiakanoon

mortgage. In my opinion,
therefore, the transaction
contained in the deed of
mortgage is not a surety
ship transaction as argued
on behalf of the liquidator.
If the joint liability is
admitted, no question of
reduction of debt of M.T.
Ltd.
It was held that the words
"agreed value" or "valued
at" were not necessary to
create a valued policy
provided that the parties'
intentions were clear that
there was a specified
agreed value, proposed by
the assured and accepted
by the underwriter.
There were two fleet
policies of hull and
machinery insurance. One
policy, issued by the
Russian insurer,
Ingosstrakh, covered 40%
of the risk. The remaining
60% was insured by a
second policy issued by
Ingosstrakh's German
subsidiary. The policies
provided cover in
materially identical terms
and set out details of each
vessel insured, its owners,
the particular cover terms
applicable to that vessel
and a "sum insured" for
each vessel. The "THOR II"
was listed with a sum
insured of US$1.5 million.
In 2002, it was immobilised
by a broken shaft and main
engine damage and the
repairs were estimated to
cost US$2 million. The
ship-owners gave notice of
abandonment as the
repairs were expected to
cost more than the sum
insured. They argued the

The court added that

the use of the term
"sum insured" would
normally indicate the
amount for which the
subject matter was
insured and not as
specifying the agreed
value. That sum would
the ceiling of recovery.
The court held that the
appropriate measure of
indemnity in this case
was the market value
of the vessel at the
time and place of her
loss.

vessel was a constructive

total loss.

Australian
case of "Vero
Insurance NZ
Ltd v Posa"

Indiakanoon

Oriental
Insurance
Company
Limited,
Maharashtra,
Duly
Represented
by Regional
Manager,
Bangalore v
Rathnamma
W/o Late G. K.
Govindaiah
and another

2015 Indlaw KAR

2039 2015 (3)
ACC 571 2015
(3) KarLJ 9

In that case, Mr. Posa's

pleasure craft was
destroyed by a fire at his
home. The insurer sought
to avoid the policy on the
grounds inter alia of failure
to disclose material
information at previous
renewals of the policy,
including an alleged failure
to inform the insurer about
previous unsuccessful
attempts to sell the vessel
below the market rate.
Whether this disclosure
was material depended
partly on whether the
policy was for an agreed
value.
Carriers & Transportation
Accidental claim Grant of
compensation Justifiability
Road accident occurred
while traveling in goods
tempo resulted in death of
deceased and other
sustained injury in said
accident On claim petition
filed by legal
representatives of
deceased and injured
separately, sum was
awarded as compensation
to claimants by order of
Claim Tribunal Hence,
instant Appeal Whether
Tribunal is justified in
awarding compensation in
favour of legal
representatives of
deceased and injured

The judge in that case

relied on the decision in
"Thor v Ingosstrakh"
and found there was
insufficient intention to
fix a value for the
vessel in the policy
terms. Rather, he held
that the terms of the
cover did no more than
fix a maximum amount
that could be paid out
and the insurable value
remained subject to
determination at the
time the claim was
made. The policy was
therefore unvalued.
Tribunal has come to
right conclusion that
deceased and injured
were traveling along
with their goods and
therefore insurer is
liable to indemnify
claimants. Even on
reappreciation of entire
evidence on touchstone
of broad preponderance
of probabilities, it is
held that, Tribunal has
not committed any
illegality or perversity
in appreciating
materials placed on
record. On the other
hand,
Tribunal has adopted
right approach to real
state of affairs after
assessing oral and
documentary evidence
on touchstone of
intrinsic probabilities.
Hence, there are no

Jiangsu
Skyrun Wuxi v
Syrma
Technology
Private
Limited

2014 Indlaw MUM

2156

grounds to interfere
with well-considered
judgment and award
passed by Tribunal
Mulcting liability on the
insurer on the basis of
the contract of
indemnity is justified
Corporate Companies Act,
Held, that Company's
1956, ss. 433 and 434
submission regarding
Debt Winding up
oral understanding is
Commercial solvency
afterthought and
Petitioner was seller of
belated attempt to
certain goods Petitioner
avoid making payment
sold and delivered some
of Petitioner's lawful
goods to respondent/
dues. There is not even
Company in respect of
whisper of such
which seven invoices were understanding in emails
issued by petitioner
of Company admitting
Company failed to pay for
liability and assuring
said goods Despite
prompt payment.
repeated assurances,
Company has, admitted
Company failed to remit
fact that Petitioner
outstanding dues Petitioner received amount from
issued statutory notice and its insurance Company
Company failed to reply for was brought to
same Company contended knowledge of Company
that there was oral
by Petitioner itself. If
understanding between
the Petitioner had any
petitioner and Company
intention of suppressing
that payments to petitioner said fact, petitioner
would only be made once
would not have
monies were received from mentioned same to
third party Petitioner also
Company. Assured is
contended that petitioner's entitled
insurance company had
to proceed against third
paid amount to petitioner
party and its only
in settlement of its claim
obligation is to make
against said invoices and
good amount paid by
petitioner had suppressed
insurer after having
this fact and hence
accounted for its own
Company was not liable to claim to ensure that
pay any sum Hence instant assured is not paid in
petition
excess of its claim.
Third party cannot be
seen to take defence
that claimant has
already been paid out
by insurer and,
consequently, avoid
making payment on

New India
Assurance
Company
Limited,
represented
by its
Managing,
Karimnagar
District and

2014 Indlaw HYD

1300

Carriers & Transportation

Motor
Vehicles Act,1988, s.166
Constitution of India,1950,
rt.141 Impleadment of
party Claimants
filed claim petition before
Claim Tribunal on behalf of
deceased Tribunal, without

that ground.
Submission by
Company that
petitioner's claim is not
'debt' but 'damages'
and that there is no
ascertained liability and
therefore claim of
Plaintiff can only be
proved in Civil Court is
untenable and
therefore rejected.
Court is satisfied that
amount as claimed by
petitioner is admittedly
ascertained and due
and payable by
Company to Petitioner.
Company cannot be
heard to say that since
it has large number of
workers and is making
profits Petition ought
not to be admitted.
Position that
commercial solvency of
Company cannot be
sole ground to reject
admission of Company
Petition, particularly
when debt is admitted
and there is no bona
fide dispute, is well
established. Petitioner
is directed to advertise
Petition in two local
newspapers. After
advertisements are
issued, balance if any,
shall be refunded to
Petitioner. Order
accordingly
Held, Tribunal cannot
give finding in absence
of driver of vehicle in
claim petition filed
u/s.166 of the Act,
when accident was
result of his rash and
negligent driving of
vehicle as it

another v
Margam
Padmavathi
W/o late
Kumaraswam
y

Sushant
Minerals
Private
Limited,
Odisha v
Indusind Bank
Limited,
Odisha

impleading driver as
necessary party, awarded
rs.15 lakhs with interest at
7.5% per annum with joint
liability Hence, instant
Appeal

2014 Indlaw
NCDRC 895 2015
(1) CPJ(NC) 404

Consumer Protection
Practice
& Procedure Consumer
Protection Act,1986, s.2(1)
(d)(ii) Violation of
guidelines
Deficiency in service
Maintainability of
complaint Complainant
was maintaining current
account in opposite party
bank accepted offer of

tantamount to violation
of principles of natural
justice. General
observations are
basically guidelines, for
all Tribunals to follow as
law of land, in
particular, u/art.141 of
the Constitution, to see
that impleadment of
driver of crime vehicle
alleged as respondent
to claim petition is
mandatory. It is for
reason that accident
claimed resulted due to
negligence of driver,
from claim petition
averments that is
required to be proved
by claimants u/s.166 of
the Act. It is only
therefrom owner of
vehicle is liable
vicariously to say driver
is principal offender to
fix liability vicariously
on the owner and
consequently for the
insurer to indemnify the
said owner insured.
When such is mandate
of law, HC has no
option but for to
remand matter while
directing Tribunal to
implead driver of
vehicle. Appeal
disposed of
Held, it is seen from
letter of opposite party
by which it has
sanctioned the facility
of credit limit to
complainant that
opposite party has
provided forward cover
limit for 'Plain Vanila
Forward
Contracts' upto an
amount of rs.15 crores

opposite party to avail

facility of forward contract
During period of
acceptance of facility of
forward contract, opposite
party was indulged in
crediting or deducting
various sums in account of
complainant on different
dates without issuing
advice Complainant had
never applied for any
forward contact nor had
submitted Opposite party
violated guidelines issued
by RBI on forward contacts
Hence, instant Complaint
Whether complaint filed by
complainant is
maintainable in view of
provisions of s.2(1) (d)(ii)
of the Act.

Dulal Chandra
Majumder S/o
Late Indra
Kumar
Majumder v
Bibek Roy S/o
Bimal Kanti
Roy
and another

2015 Indlaw TRI

137

Carriers & Transportation

Practice
& Procedure Compensation
Reduction of Petitioner
filed claim petition on
account of accident
wherein, Tribunal awarded
him compensation
Respondent
no.2 Oriental Insurance
Company filed review
petition for reviewing said
judgment Upon which

for a period of one year

and the purpose as
noted in the terms and
conditions to sanction.
Service provided by
opposite party
comprised of two parts.
Firstly, service was by
way of provision of
credit limit upto rs.15
crores and secondly
same was for the
purpose of hedging
against foreign
currency exposure for
the import/export
transactions of the
complainant. Generally
speaking, there should
not be any doubt about
the fact that the credit
limit facility ranted by
bank to a company is
for commercial
purpose. Further, it is
clear that, when party
resorts to and enters
into arrangement of
hedging against
currency, it is without
any doubt for
commercial purpose
which essentially
involves profit motive.
Hence, complaint filed
by complainant is not
maintainable.
Complaint dismissed
Held, disability
certificate showing that
petitioner has suffered
30% of disability has
been issued with
validity for five years
and not permanent
one, meaning status of
disability is subject to
review.
But this cannot be
denied that petitioner
suffered serious injury

compensation was reduced

with interest Hence,
instant Revision Whether
petitioner is entitled to get
compensation

and he was hospitalized

for a considerable time
and he was under
treatment of reputed
Orthopaedic Surgeon.
For purpose of
treatment he availed
45 days leave and
further, for review
treatment, he availed
13 days leave. But
treatment petitioner
availed in Apollo
Hospital had no
connection with
accident hence, leave
that petitioner availed
for 13 days cannot be
accounted for in
relation to accident. But
what was surprising is
that for pain and
suffering only rs.5,000
has been accounted for
in compensation. But in
absence of any
evidence relating to
loss of income, loss as
assessed by tribunal
based on salary of
petitioner is
unsustainable. Court
cannot shut its eyes to
the reasoning given by
tribunal by way of
judgment and award
when aspect of
employment of
petitioner was not at all
considered or totally
ignored. Petitioner is
entitled get
compensation with
interest. Respondent
no.2 is directed to pay
amount. Revision
allowed

Punjab and
Maharashtra
Cooperative
Bank Limited,
Mumbai v Puri
International
(Private)
Limited,
Mumbai

2015 Indlaw MUM

265

Arbitration & ADR Banking

& Finance MultiState
Cooperative Societies
Act,2002, s.84 Bank
guarantee Arbitration
award Validity of
Respondent
no.1 approached petitioner
bank
for issuance of counter
guarantee favoring Export
and Import Bank of
India(EXIM Bank) EXIM
Bank agreed to furnish
performance guarantee in
favor of company with
whom respondent no.1 had
transaction Respondent
no.1 gave undertaking to
petitioner to repatriate
required percentage of
contract value of project
export norms applicable
which included
Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation of India Ltd.
(ECGC) premium ECGC
issued a policy in favor of
petitioner Respondent
no.1 filed petition against
CGC in Kuwait and
informed EXIM Bank not to
release any payment to
National Bank of
Kuwait(NBK) till Court
directives were received
but respondent and NBK
didn't informed EXIM about
directives Petitioner made
claim of money to ECGC
under policy Arbitrator
was appointed u/s.84 of
the Act for purpose of
adjudicating claims made
by petitioner Petitioner
filed statement of claim
against respondents to pay
certain sum Arbitrator
rejected claims made by
petitioner holding that
there

Held, CGC was neither

a party to arbitration
agreement between
petitioner and
respondents nor a party
to arbitration
proceedings before
arbitrator so finding
rendered by arbitrator
that there was no valid
contract between
respondents and CGC is
patently illegal. Bank
guarantee issued by
petitioner was an
independent, separate
and distinct contract.
The arbitrator has
mixed up contract
between respondents
and said CGC with
counter guarantee
issued by petitioner in
favour of EXIM Bank
which was totally a
different contract.
Petitioner was not
concerned in any
manner with contract
between respondents
and said CGC or with
NBK. Further, finding of
arbitrator that since
guarantee was not
invoked correctly and
respondents were not
at all at fault, petitioner
could not have released
amount is totally
perverse. Merely
because petitioner had
debited insurance
premium paid to ECGC
in account of
respondents, benefit
under policy obtained
by petitioner from
ECGC did not give rise
to a transfer in favour
of respondents.
Respondents were not

was no valid contract

between respondent and
CGC Hence,
instant Petition

Baldev Alloys
Private
Limited
Through Its
Authorised
Signatory M.
K. Som S/o
Late D. K.
Som
v Chairman
Cum
Managing
Director, New
India
Assurance
Company
Limited and
another

2014 Indlaw
SCDRC 1419

Consumer Protection
Consumer
Protection Act, 1986, s. 17
Unpaid
claim Entitlement of
Complainant
filed consumer complaint
u/s. 17 of the Act against
the OPs Insurance
company seeking relief to
indemnify complainant by
paying the balance claim
amount of
Rs.31,02,770/and to pay
interest at 18% p.a. To pay
compensation amount of
Rs.10,00,000/towards
mental, physical and
financial loss To

beneficiaries under said

agreement between
petitioner and ECGC.
Petitioner was under an
obligation to take legal
steps for recovery of
amount which
petitioner was required
to pay to EXIM Bank on
behalf of respondents.
No finding could be
rendered against ECGC
in absence of ECGC in
arbitration proceedings.
Therefore, direction of
arbitrator to petitioner
to credit amount
received from ECGC in
account of respondents
is totally illegal. There
was neither any such
claim made by
respondents nor any
such relief could be
granted by arbitrator in
favor of respondents.
Thus, award is patently
illegal and contrary to
law and deserves to be
set aside and thereby
set aside. Petition
allowed
Held, authorized
signatory of the
complainant company
himself signed the
document discharge
voucher (OP9). The
complainant is Private
Limited Company and
complainant is
authorized person for
signing and verifying
the documents on
behalf of the
complainant company.
It appears that
complainant is highly
educated person and
therefore, generally it is
not possible that he

saddle the cost of litigation

expenses, lawyers fees for
instituting the instant
complaint and approaching
Commission and to grant
any other relief, which
Commission deems fit and
just under circumstances
of the case and in the
interest of justice

Good Luck
Petroleum
Company
Private
Limited v
Future
Generali India
Insurance
Company

2014 Indlaw
SCDRC 1420

Consumer Protection
Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 , s. 17
Unpaid claims Entitlement
of Complainant has filed
this
consumer complaint u/s.
17 of the Act against the
Ops Insurance

signed the blank

document (Discharge
Voucher) without going
through contents of the
same. Therefore, the
plea taken by the
complainant that the
authorized signatory of
the complainant signed
the discharge voucher
in blank form, is not
acceptable.
Complainant has not
been able to prove that
Discharge Voucher was
executed by
complainant in
unavoidable
circumstances or under
coercion or in blank
form and he was in the
need of money. From
perusal of the
discharge voucher, it
appears that the
complainant had freely
consented for
accepting the amount
of Rs.39,27,504/and
accepted the same in
his free will.
Complainant received
sum of
Rs.39,27,504/form the
OPs in full and final
satisfaction of its claim
Therefore, complainant
is not entitled to get
any amount as
mentioned in the relief
clause of the complaint.
Complaint dismissed.
Held, complainant
submitted that he
suffered loss to the
tune of
Rs.30,00,000/and
sought above amount
from the OPs along with
interest at18% p.a.,
However, complainant

Limited

Company) to pay sum of

Rs.30,00,000/which the
complainant is entitled as
claimed amount and to pay
interest from date of loss
at the rate of 18% p.a. To
pay Rs.2,00,000 towards
compensation for unfair
trade practice, mental
agony and harassment for
non-settlement
of the genuine loss and
any other relief, which
Commission deems fit,
may also be awarded in
favour of complainant as
against the OP.

did not produce any

cogent and reliable
evidence to show that
he suffered loss to the
tune of Rs.30,00,000/.
Surveyor and Loss
Assessor gave report
and assessed the loss
to the tune of
Rs.15,53,946/. The
Report of the Surveyor
is reliable evidence,
therefore, Surveyor's
Report is genuine
and dependable. On
the basis of Surveyor
report, it is evident that
the complainant
suffered loss to the
tune of Rs.15,53,946/,
therefore, complainant
is entitled to get
compensation from the
OPs
to the tune of
Rs.15,53,946/.
Complainant is entitled
for interest at 9% p.a.
from the date of filing
of the complaint.
Complainant is not
entitled for the
compensation under for
unfair trade practice,
mental agony and
harassment for nonsettlement of the
genuine loss.
Complainant is also
entitled to get a sum of
sum of Rs.5,000/from
the OPs towards cost of
litigation. Hence, it is
directed that the Ops
will pay sum of
Rs.15,53,946/along
with interest at 9% p.a.
and sum of
Rs.5,000/towards cost
of litigation to
complainant.

Complaint partly
allowed.