PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner M/s Haryana Yarn Store, Panipat present. Arguments heard. The petitioner has a godown in Panipat. On 18.11.1997 fire broke out in the premises. The petitioner submitted a claim before National Insurance Company Ltd. that it had suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 15,97,778.26 paise. Thereafter, there was a settlement and the discharge voucher was prepared on 09.12.1998. The petitioner was paid the compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,58,220/- on 18.11.1998. The complainant itself wrote a letter to the insurance company that in case the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to it, it had no objection to receive the amount later on. Thereafter, as per settlement arrived between the parties, Voucher was drawn, which is also mentioned by the State Commission and the same is hereby reproduced as under:- “Voucher No. 1046 dated 9.12.08 Department Fire Clain No. 31/97-97/23 Policy No. 3100136 RR/LR/B L/AWB No………. dated 9.12.98 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY B.O. II, G.T. ROAD, PANIPAT. The sum of Rupees 50,000/- (fifty thousand) only in full settlement and satisfaction and discharge of our claim upon them under the above noted policy in respect of the loss of Fire which occurred on or about the 18 day of Nov. 1997. It is further understood that I/We do hereby subrogate to the National Insurance Company all my/our rights, title and interest in the subject matter of insurance and in the salvage if any Rs. 50,000/- Panipat Sd/- For Haryana Yam Store Date: 9/12/09”
2. The complainant did not deny its signature on the discharge voucher. This clearly shows that there was full and final settlement and nothing remained due to the complainant. 3. However, the complainant sent a representation on 21.12.1998 i.e. after about 12 days from the date of settlement. That representation was not legally maintainable and secondly, the complaint was filed on 19.02.2004, which was barred by time. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had sent subsequent letters and the matter was kept pending but that matter does not carry any value in the eyes of Law because the matter already stood settled. 4. The Apex Court in the case of “United India Insurance versus Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. [II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC) the apex court was pleased to hold: -, “4. ………………… The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise or undue influence or by mis-representation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, mis-representation, under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher and acceptance of the insurance claim would not estop insured from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances as noticed earlier. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act shall also have the power to fasten liability against the Insurance Companies notwithstanding the insurance of the discharge voucher. Such a claim cannot be termed to be fastening the liability against the Insurance Companies over and above the liabilities payable under the contract of insurance envisaged in the policy of insurance. The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. 5. In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, mis-representation or the lie. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commision was justified in dismissing their complaints…………………………” 5. This view was also followed in a case reported in the case of “Raj Kumar versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [III (2011) CPJ 354 (NC)]” 6. We see no merit in the revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. | 
