Delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

             Complainant/appellant which is a proprietary concern deals and engages in the trading of cotton waste, tailor cuttings, hard wastes and their carding etc.  It obtained a policy for insuring its building and boundary for a sum of Rs.16 Lac for the period from 28.12.2007 to 27.12.2008.  Complainant purchased another policy from the respondent covering stocks of all kinds including yarn, cotton, cotton waste etc. for total insured amount of Rs.80 Lac for the period from 24.12.2007 to 23.12.2008.  A fire took place in the unit of the appellant on 14/15.05.2008 and the entire quantity of stocks lying in the godown was totally damaged/burnt.  DDR was also registered in the Police Station.  Respondent was informed on the same date.  Respondent appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at

-3-

Rs.19,49,080/- against the claim of Rs.72,48,704/-.  Respondent offered to pay the amount assessed by the Surveyor which was accepted by the appellant unconditionally.  After accepting the amount assessed by the Surveyor, appellant filed the complaint seeking payment of the balance amount.

             State Commission dismissed the complaint holding that since the appellant had accepted the sum of Rs.19,50,000/- in full and final settlement of the dispute the complaint filed by the appellant was not maintainable.  State Commission has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in “United India Insurance vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & Gene ral Mills & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 400” wherein it has been held as under:

          “Insurance claim-Full and final settlement- Where claim has been accepted without any objection, full and final settlement of claim was made by insurer, claimant cannot be allowed any further relief.  But mere execution of discharge voucher cannot deprive the claimant of consequential relief particularly when such discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or under coercion-In the instance case complainant failed to prove any such reason, he therefore, was not entitled to

-4-

any further relief-Even delay of few months taken in settlement of claim does not constitute deficiency in service-Order of State Commission restored-order passed by National Commission set aside.”

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The consent letter and Discharge Voucher given by the appellant are reproduced below:

CONSENT LETTER

Policy No.                     OGo8-1206-4001-00001352 & G08-1206-4001-00001354

Name of Insured:           M. K. Textiles Mills

Fire Loss on                  Night between 14^th & 15^th May, 2008

Surveyor                       Atul Kapur & Company

            We M. K. Textile Mills hereby give our consent for sum of Rs.19,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of our claim against fire loss occurred on night between 14^th 15^th May 2008 at our premises at Village Dahar, Gohana Road, Panipat which is insured under policy OGo8-1206-4001-00001352 (for building) & G08-1206-4001-00001354 (for stock).

We had discussed the assessment in detail with surveyor and agree with the basis which they have taken to arrive at the final loss.

By accepting this amount, we shall discharge Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., of all liability without recourse to any future legal action pertaining to this claim.

We understand that above amount is subject to policy terms and conditions and further subject to acceptance by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

For M. K. Textile Mills

Sd/-

Mukesh Kumar Prop.”

-5-

DISCHARGE VOUCHER

          PAY M/s M.K.Textiles Mill

            RUPEES NINTEEN LAKHS FORTY-SEVEN THOUSAND ONE ONLY

Rs.19,47,001/-

A/C No.00070350000743    For Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

HDFC Bank Ltd.

Netrali Apts., Opp. Bhandarkar Inst.

Law College Road, Pune-411001

Authorised Signatory

“217301” 411240002: 901368” 29”

A perusal of the consent letter would show that the appellant had accepted the amount after applying its mind and discussing in detail with the Surveyor, the basis on which the final loss had been assessed; the appellant had given the Discharge Voucher voluntarily without any misrepresentation or coercion by the respondent.  No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.