Complainant/petitioner’s firm had got insurance in the sum of                   Rs.6 Lac from the respondent company on 21.2.2005 to be effective till 20.2.2006.  On 11.4.2005, due to short circuit, the insured premises caught fire and caused a substantial loss.   Petitioner informed the respondent company who appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.1,40,640/-.  The insurance company paid the sum of Rs.1,40,640/- which the petitioner accepted voluntarily in full

-2-

and final settlement.  Petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.4,57,125/- with interest w.e.f. 31.3.2006 till realization within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.  Rs.3,300/- were awarded by way of costs.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been accepted by the impugned order.  The State Commission has held that the petitioner had accepted the sum of Rs.1,40,640/- on 31.3.2006 in full and final settlement and gave the Discharge Voucher.  The complaint was filed on 19.10.2006 i.e. after a lapse of over six months; that since the appellant had accepted the sum of Rs.1,40,640/- in full and final settlement by executing the Discharge Voucher, the complaint was not maintainable. 

          The State Commission has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton

-3-

& General Mills & Ors. Etc. 1999 (2) CPC 601 (S.C.) in which 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 instant case complainant failed to prove any such reason, he therefore, was not entitled to any further relief- Even delay of few months taken in settlement of claim does not constitute deficiency in servide3-Order of State Commission restored-Order passed by National Commission set aside.”  

The State Commission has also relied upon its earlier decision in “National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kuka Rice & General Mills, 2008 (10 CPC 28 (Haryana)”

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The petitioner had accepted the sum of Rs.1,40,640/- in full and final settlement and gave the Discharge Voucher.  No protest was

-4-

lodged till 19.10.2006.  Had the protest been lodged within a reasonable time, which this Commission has held to be 7-10 days, consumer fora could have dealt into this aspect.  Since the protest was not lodged within the reasonable time, the State Commission is right in holding that the petitioner accepted the amount of Rs.1,40,640/- voluntarily and without influence.   Revision petition is dismissed.  No costs.