1.    This appeal under section 51(1) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is in challenge to the Order dated 11.06.2021 of the State Commission in complaint no. 12 of 2012.

2.    We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘complainant’) and for the respondent (the ‘insurance co.’). We have also perused the material on record, including inter alia the State Commission’s Order dated 11.06.2021 and the memorandum of appeal.

3.    The matter relates to an insurance claim. The insurance was for a total sum of Rs. 1 crore. The claimed loss was of Rs. 96.66 lakh. The insurance co. settled the claim at Rs. 48.10 lakh as full and final settlement after obtaining a discharge voucher from the complainant.

The State Commission has dismissed the complaint on ground that the complainant voluntarily accepted the offered amount of Rs. 48.10 lakh in full and final settlement after signing the discharge voucher.

4.    The insurance co.’s contention is that the complainant had accepted the amount offered in full and final settlement after signing the discharge voucher and as such he was estopped from agitating the matter.

The complainant’s contention is that it signed the discharge voucher and accepted the amount offered by the insurance co. since it was under a threatening bargain and it was made to understand that otherwise it will not even receive the lesser amount. But immediately thereafter it sent a letter dated 20.02.2012 in which it clearly made out its case inter alia stating that its economic condition had deteriorated after the loss of almost Rs. 1 crore and that it had signed the discharge voucher under compulsion and pressure in stringent economic condition and that its acceptance of the lesser amount was under protest and it had asked for the balance amount of its claim from the insurance co.

5.    In so far as executing the discharge voucher is concerned, it needs no espousing that the discharge voucher has its own significance and implications but in case if the same has been executed under duress or under coercion or by fraud or in a situation in which the complainant had to necessarily sign the voucher without which it could not have got even the lesser amount being settled by the insurance co. or if the voucher was signed in good faith by treating it as a routine formality without being told or realising its significance and implications, etc., depending upon the facts and circumstances it cannot be held to be a kind of estoppel prejudicially detrimental to the complainant.

6.    We are afraid, but in the present case we have reservations about the correctness of the insurance co.’s contention. The peril of fire occurred on 09.12.2009 at around 9.00 p.m. The fire department and the police were immediately informed. The insurance co. was informed the next day i.e. on 10.12.2009. The claim was made for an amount of Rs. 96.66 lakh. It was settled at Rs. 48.10 lakh after obtaining a discharge voucher. The complainant thereafter sent a letter on 20.02.2012 wherein it made it clear that it had signed the discharge voucher under compulsion and pressure in adverse economic condition and also communicated that its acceptance of the lesser amount was under protest and further it asked for the balance amount to be paid by the insurance co.

7.    Learned counsel for the complainant argues that the insurance co. in the normal course does not release the settled amount until a discharge voucher is signed and made available to it. The complainant was in a helpless situation. On the one hand it had incurred a huge loss and was in dire economic condition. On the other hand it had no other alternative but to sign on the discharge voucher without recording any protest and accept the amount being offered by the insurance co. else otherwise it would not have been given even the lesser amount. Had it recorded any form of protest on the discharge voucher the insurance co. would not have accepted the same and would have withheld payment of even the lesser amount it was offering. As such, immediately after signing the discharge voucher and obtaining the lesser amount paid by the insurance co. it made its circumstances as also its protest explicit to the insurance co. by way of its letter of 20.02.2012.

8.    Learned counsel for the insurance co. agrees that in the normal wont of its functioning the insurance co. ordinarily obtains a discharge voucher from the insured before making payment of the settled amount. He further argues that a discharge voucher has its own significance and implications and it cannot be ignored with apathy. The complainant had voluntarily accepted the settled amount in full and final settlement and the legal notice it had sent subsequently does not override the discharge voucher signed earlier and was only intended to harass the insurance co. and to anyhow agitate the matter when it had already been aptly settled.

On a query from the bench, learned counsel submits that it is not readily possible to give examples of cases in which the amount as offered by the insurance co. has been actually paid to an insured even after the insured has recorded its protest on the discharge voucher.

9.    We see a situation in which the insured has to unconditionally sign a discharge voucher and not record any protest thereon else it will not get even the lesser amount being offered by the insurance co. In case it records any protest on the discharge voucher the insurance co. will not accept the same and will not pay even the lesser amount it has decided to pay. On the other hand in case it does not make any protest the insurance co. will take shield of the unconditional discharge voucher. In the third eventuality in case it makes a protest subsequently the insurance co. will emphasise on the significance and implications of a discharge voucher and contend that the subsequent protest does not override the discharge voucher signed earlier and is only intended to harass the insurance co. and to anyhow agitate the matter after it has been aptly settled. This is self-evidently a catch-22 situation, unfair and unjust.

10.   Pertinently there is nothing on record to show that the complainant’s categorical contention that its economic condition had deteriorated because of the loss and as such it had no other alternative but to execute the discharge voucher in order to atleast obtain the lesser payment being offered is in any way false or erroneous. To us this appears to be a valid and good enough reason for discounting the discharge voucher since it most obviously appears to have been executed in a situation in which the complainant had to necessarily sign the voucher without which it could not have got even the lesser amount being settled by the insurance co. much moreso when it had to urgently address and mitigate its adverse economic condition.

Too obviously the fact also remains that the complainant has taken its case before the State Commission when ordinarily there would have been no need for the complainant to do so if it had voluntarily accepted the lesser amount settled by the insurance co. without reservation and was not dissatisfied with it, not to speak of the promptly expressed protest which was duly communicated by the complainant to the insurance co. The impelling circumstances which subdued it to sign the voucher have already been explained by the complainant which is part of record.

11.   We also do not fail to notice that the essence of the complainant’s case is that it has assailed the merits of the surveyor’s report and challenged the payment of a lesser amount by the insurance co. against its higher claim. This essence has not even been touched by the State Commission.

12.     Sequel to the above, we find reason to hold in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the execution of the discharge voucher cannot be held against the complainant.

13.  With the above observations the impugned Order dated 11.06.2021 of the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for decision on merit on the essence of the complaint.

The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.06.2023.

14.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.