JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant obtained two insurance policies from the opposite party  - one to the extent of Rs.80 lakhs in respect of the stocks of pesticides and fertilizers and the other to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs in respect of the building in which the said stock was stored. A fire broke out in the shop of the complainant on 29.1.2016 causing extensive loss to the building as well as to the stock. On intimation being given to the insurer, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss suffered by the complainant. The surveyor assessed the loss in respect of the stock of goods at Rs.2911349/-. The complainant executed a discharge voucher dated 24.6.2016, accepting the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement of the discharge of the liability by the insurer under the policy insuring the goods kept in the shop. The aforesaid amount was then paid to the complainant. After receiving the aforesaid amount on 24.6.2016, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint alleging therein that the loss of/damage to the stock was much more than what had been assessed by the surveyor, the same being Rs.5836870.25. It was also alleged that the loss of complainant on account of damage to the building and furniture was more than Rs.8 lakhs, which had not been paid.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the insurer interalia on the grounds that the loss to the complainant was rightly assessed by the surveyor and that the complainant had accepted the amount of Rs.2911349/- in full and final settlement of her claim.

3.      The State Commission vide its order dated 3.2.2017 partly allowed the complaint by directing payment of Rs.485859/- on account of damage to the building but upheld the case of the insurer as far as loss of/damage to the stock of goods was concerned. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission challenging the order of the State Commission to the extent the claim in respect of the balance amount on account of loss of/damage to the goods has been denied.

4.      As noted earlier, the amount of  Rs.2911349/- paid to the complainant for the loss/damage to the stock was based upon the assessment made by the surveyor. It is also an admitted position that the complainant executed the discharge voucher accepting the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement of her claim, without lodging any protest, in this regard. There is no evidence of the complainant having disputed the amount of Rs.2911349/- offered by the insurer, before executing the discharge voucher. Even after executing the discharge voucher on 24.6.2016, the complainant did not even write a letter to the insurer stating therein that the aforesaid amount was not voluntarily accepted by her. The aforesaid circumstances clearly indicate that the execution of the discharge voucher was a voluntary act without any kind of pressure or influence from the insurer.

5.      The case of the complainant, as set out in the consumer complaint, is that she having taken a loan from the bank was required to pay monthly interest on the loan amount and having suffered loss due to fire in her shop, she had to accept the amount offered by the insurer in order to keep on servicing the said loan by regularly paying the interest on the said loan. However, as rightly noted by the State Commission, no evidence was led by the complainant before the State Commission to prove that without receiving the aforesaid amount from the insurer, she was not in a position to service the loan taken from the bank by keep on paying the interest on the loan amount. The complainant had an opportunity to prove the aforesaid averment before the State Commission. She, however, failed to substantiate the same by leading appropriate evidence. In these circumstances, when there was no protest or resistance from the complainant either before or soon after executing the discharge voucher and no evidence has been led by her to prove that she had to accept the aforesaid amount, in order to enable her to service the loan taken from the bank, the view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

6.      Since the appeal is being dismissed on merits, no order needs to be passed seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the said appeal.