On oral request delay of 29 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

Complainant/petitioner is running business of cotton yarn and cotton waste yarn at Gohana after obtaining finance from Punjab National Bank.  Petitioner purchased stock insurance policies; one valid from 21.5.2002 to 20.5.2003 and other valid from 19.4.2002 to

-2-

18.4.2003 from the respondent insurance company.  The total sum insured under the policies was Rs.50 Lacs.  Premises of the petitioner caught fire on 16.6.2002.  Fire brigade was informed.  Petitioner intimated the respondent as well of the incident on 17.6.2002.  Respondent insurance company deputed joint surveyor who after inspection of the premises/records on 18.6.2002 submitted his preliminary survey report showing loss of Rs.25 Lacs.   The claim was not settled.  Complainant was further asked to submit the stock statement prepared by the Chartered Accountant along with other documents.  Petitioner submitted the documents.  Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.12,45,116/-.  Petitioner initially did not agree to accept Rs.12,45,116/- in full and final settlement of his claim, but later on vide letter dated 23.1.2003 accepted the sum of Rs.12,46,239/-.  After accepting the sum of Rs.12,46,239/-, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.  Petitioner had claimed Rs.29,46,550/-.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay Rs.17,79,595/- along with interest @ 12% from

-3-

the date of incident, i.e., 16.6.2002 till realization.  Rs.20,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

          Petitioner as well as the respondent filed separate appeals before the State Commission.  The State Commission accepting the appeal of the insurance company set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that after accepting the sum of Rs.12,46,239/- towards full and final settlement, petitioner could not reopen dispute for the balance amount of his claim;  the complaint was not maintainable.  The State Commission has relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in “United India Insurance vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & Gneral Mills & Ors. Etc. 1999 (2) CPC (S.C.)” 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.”

          On our asking, petitioner has produced the letter dated 10.1.2003 written by it to the respondent.  Opening para of the letter reads as under:

“……..

We refer to the final discussions held with you in connection with the assessment of our above loss.  Based on the verifications/discussions, we hereby confirm that we are agreeable to the net adjustment of our loss at total Rs.1246239/- (as against our cflaim of Rs.30,61,250/- as under:”

          It would be seen that the petitioner accepted the sum of Rs.12,46,239/ after final discussions with the respondents.  The petitioner voluntarily confirmed that the petitioner was agreeable to the net adjustment of the loss at total Rs.12,46,239/- as against their claim for Rs.30,61,250/-.  As per law laid down by Supreme Court, the complaint was not maintainable unless the petitioner could show that the discharge voucher given by him was obtained by the

-5-

respondents by fraud, misrepresentation or under coercion.  As in the case before the Supreme Court, petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that the respondents had committed either fraud or misrepresentation or the voucher was taken under the coercion.  There is no evidence on record to show that the discharge voucher was given by the petitioner under misrepresentation or duress.  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.