The respondent No. 1 appointed a surveyor to assess the loss and he finally submitted his report and recommended the claim to the extent of Rs.6,75,127/-. The report of the surveyor is an illegal report passed on concocted calculation as he refused to take into account the copies of the bills vide which total purchases were made as well as the copies of return statements of sale tax and income tax properly audited from the chartered accountant, but the surveyor refused to give any reason for the assessment of losses. The respondent No. 1 has done the verification of stocks at the time of issuing of insurance policy by it to the respondent No. 2 which got <br /> purchase insurance policy from opposite party No. 1. Since there was a limit going on the stock lying in Mahakali Emporium show room show it was not possible for the surveyor to assess the stitched and unstitched cloths burnt to ashes during fire. The complainant made a request to the Divisional Branch Office of National Insurance Company in writing to look into the matter vide letter dated 7.6.2008. Since the complainant was suffering from hardship and he was in need of money as he lost his everything lying in the Mahakali Emporium show room on 11.2.2008 in the night at about 10.30 P.M. <br /> <br /> -5-<br /> when the sudden fire broke out and under these compelling circumstances, he accepted the payment.<br /> 3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence, affidavit of Shri Surinder Kumar son of Shri Amar Nath Ex.C1, also tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Gurjit Singh Sethi Ex.C1/A, another affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1/B alongwith the copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C433, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C433 and the same already on original file. They also tendered into evidence copies of some documents Ex.C434 to Ex.C540. The complainant also tendered into evidence Ex.CC and documents Ex.C3/A to Ex.C3/C with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C406 and also documents from Ex.C537 to Ex.C539. After tendering into evidence Ex.C541, the complainant has closed the evidence.<br /> 4. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP17 and affidavit of S. Gurvinder Pal Singh Sayal, Surveyor and Loss Assessors Ex.PB and closed the evidence of opposite party No.1.<br /> 5. In this case, the opposite party no. 2 appeared in the Forum through their Manager and they submitted a letter dated 21.8.2008 mentioning in it that "in the above context it is submitted that no relief is sought from UCO Bank, Kapurthala. Our name being defendant No. 2, may kindly be deleted from the above case. After that the opposite party No. 2 never appeared in the Forum. <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and <br /> counsel for opposite party No.1 and have gone through the evidence placed on the file.<br /> <br /> -6-<br /> 7. This is the admitted fact by both the parties that complainant No. 2 Shri Chetan Kumar Gupta is running Mahakali Emporium as its proprietor and Mahakali Emporium was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. opposite party No.1. It is also admitted by both the parties that on 11.2.2008 at about 10.30 P.M., sudden fire broke out causing a great loss of stitched and unstitched clothes and also furniture. At that time Shri Chetan Kumar Gupta proprietor of Mahakali Emporium also received burn injuries and he was hospitalized for about two weeks and he remained on bed for 3-4 more months.<br /> 8. As the proprietor of the firm was not able to file any claim, his brother filed a claim and intimation was also given to opposite party No. 2. Newspapers also floated with the news item regarding this fire. On receiving the claim, the respondent No. 1 National Insurance Company Ltd. had appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. S. Gurvinder Pal Singh Sayal, Surveyor and Loss Assessors 184,Shakti Nagar, Jalandhar, was appointed as surveyor to assess the loss. Ex.OP4 is the report of Surveyor and Loss Assessors and he filed final report on 15.4.2008 and assessed the loss of stocks of cloths including ready-made cloths Rs.6,10.127/-, loss of furniture fittings and equipments Rs.75,000/-. The total loss was assessed at Rs.6.75,127/-.<br /> 9. Ex.O5 is a letter written to Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company by Shri Chetan Kumar Gupta complainant No.2. <br /> This is a consent letter written by Shri Chetan Kumar Gupta accepting the amount of Rs.6.75,127/- only as full and final <br /> <br /> -7-<br /> settlement of claim for loss caused due to fire against the policy bearing No. 9800000256/07. The perusal of this letter dated 17.6.2008 Ex.OP5 shows that this letter was signed by the complainant himself and he accepted the amount of Rs.6.75,127/- as full and final settlement of the claim for loss caused due to fire and this settlement of the claim by the complainant is voluntarily without any pressure and coercion. In this behalf law laid down by UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH IS REPORTED AS IV (2007) CPJ 197 CHANDIGARH PETRO FOAM PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR in which it is held as under:-<br /> "Full and final settlement-Fire broke out in<br /> factory premises-Loss assessed by Surveyor<br /> Rs.54.05 lacs paid in full and final settlement<br /> of claim-Deficiency in service alleged- Discharge<br /> voucher executed in full and final settlement<br /> voluntarily without any pressure - Formal<br /> protest lodged after more than 37 days - Belated<br /> protest cannot be accepted - No relief entitled"<br /> 10. On the same day, i.e.17.6.2008, the complainant Shri Chetan Kumar Gupta signed discharge voucher of the National Insurance Company and in these vouchers, he mentioned that a sum of Rs.6.75,127/- as payment of full and final settlement of the <br /> claim against bearing No. 9800000256/07 on account of the loss due to fire. These are two vouchers and both are signed by Shri <br /> <br /> -8-<br /> Chetan Kumar Gupta. These were executed by the complainant voluntarily without any pressure or coercion.<br /> 11. After the execution of these documents Ex.OP5 and Ex.OP6, a cheque of amount mentioned in these documents were handed over to the complainant and he encashed the same. The execution of these documents show that they were not signed under any pressure or coercion or compulsion, rather it was the financial needs of the complainant that he accepted the payment and he has not raised any protest before the encashment of the cheques. The cheques were encashed without any protest and so under these circumstances and after the encashment of the cheques, the complainant cannot be permitted to change his mind and he cannot formally protest or lodge a complaint at a belated stage<br /> In a case reported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 756, (S.C.) National insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nipah Exports Pvt. Ltd. in which it is held as under:-<br /> <br /> "The respondent received the aforesaid<br /> amount and gave a clean discharge<br /> to the applicant Insurance Company<br /> without any qualification signifying <br /> the receipt of the amount in full<br /> and final settlement of the claim."<br /> <br /> Similarly, in another case reported by Haryana State Consumer <br /> <br /> -9-<br /> Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula as 1(2008) CPJ166 in SHAMSHER SINGH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR in which it is held as under:-<br /> "Full and final settlement of claim-Fire <br /> in shop premises - Entire article burnt - <br /> Loss assessed by Surveyor - Assessed<br /> amount paid in full and final settlement<br /> of claim - Balance amount claimed <br /> later - Contention discharge voucher<br /> signed under coercion/compulsion and<br /> due to financial constraint not acceptable<br /> - Coercion/compulsion, financial constraint<br /> and elucidated and established on record -<br /> Loss rightly assessed by surveyor -No relief <br /> entitled"<br /> 12. We have also perused the income tax return Ex.OP12 i.e. income tax return for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005, Ex.OP13 i.e. income tax return for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, Ex.OP14 i.e. income tax return for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 income tax return for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 and Ex.OP16 i.e. income tax return for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008. All these above returns would reveal that the income from the business and profession of the complainant Shri Chetan Kumar Gupta is Rs. 28,426/-, <br /> Rs.1,27,994/- and Rs.1,38,034/- per annum. If these are the statement of gross income of Shri Chetan Kumar Gupta, we can very well assess the sale from this Emporium. <br /> -10-<br /> 13. On the other hand, the complainant has relied upon a case of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2008(3) National Insurance Co ltd. Vs. Sehitia Shoes page 207 in which it is held as under:-<br /> "Payment made towards full and final <br /> settlement - Being dis-satisfied with <br /> the settlement, claimant filing complaint<br /> -Mere receipt of the amount without any<br /> protest would not always debar the claimant<br /> from filing the complaint-Complaint is <br /> maintainable if it is proved that <br /> agreement to accept a particular amount <br /> was on account of coercion-in absence<br /> of a finding that discharge voucher whether<br /> signed voluntarily or under coercion matter<br /> remitted for decision afresh."<br /> 14. That this authority is of no use to the complainant because in this case, the apex court held that the complaint is maintainable if it is proved that the agreement to accept the particular amount was on account of coercion.<br /> In another case, our own Hon'ble NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION in case reported as III (2008) CPJ 93 (NC) CHAMPALAL VERMA VERSUS INSURANCE CO. LTD. is held as under:-<br /> "Surveyor's report to be given due <br /> weightage-Consumer Fora cannot<br /> go into quantum dispute - Complainant<br /> free to approach civil court/IRDA/<br /> -11-<br /> Arbitration -Time spent before Consumer<br /> Fora to be set off."<br /> 15. In the present case, there was no coercion or pressure on <br /> Shri Chetan Kumar Gupta to accept the report of the surveyor as well as the cheque of Rs.6,75,127/-. Because the complainant Shri Chetan Kumar Gupta accepted the full and final amount voluntarily. <br /> and he accepted report of the surveyor and signed the vouchers without any fear coercion and it was voluntarily.<br /> 16. The complainant has filed the present complaint with due <br /> deliberation and after consulting his relatives and friends.<br /> In view of our aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. Copy of the judgment be sent to the parties free of costs through registered post without any delay. File be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dated: Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh<br /> 30.1.2009 Member President<br />