Delay of one day in filing the revision petition is condoned. Respondent took a shopkeepers’ policy for a sum of Rs.4 Lacs. The shop owned by the respondent was gutted in the fire during the night of 8/9.1.2007. Petitioner on being informed appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.1,62,000/-. Petitioner paid the -2- sum of Rs.1,62,000/- which was accepted by the respondent, but after a period of three months, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,38,000/- with interest upto at the rate of Bank Rate. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- was also awarded. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,38,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its final payment. Rs.10,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal, but reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Before the State Commission, petitioner had raised twofold arguments. One that the respondent after having accepted Rs.1,62,000/- by way of full and final settlement could not reagitate the matter by filing a complaint before the District Forum. This -3- contention had been rejected by the State Commission by observing thus: “7. So far receipt of the amount in full and final settlement on 2.2.2007 is concerned, suffice it to say in this behalf that plight of the respondent can be better imagined than explained at the time of execution of this document. Reason being that he had been thrown completely out of business due to devastating fire. Money according to him, was remitted directly to the Financier bank by the appellant. Moreover, everything was burnt in the fire, as such there was nothing to fall back upon as averred by the respondent. With a view to signed the document, which is at page 34 of the complaint file. In addition to this, he had within three months lodged the complaint. This shows that he was not satisfied with the payment of the amount to the bank, therefore, his protest if evident when he filed the complaint. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then submission of Mr. Sharma that his appeal deserves to be allowed needs to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission on this point. Respondent had accepted the sum of Rs.1,62,000/- under -4- duress as his shop had completely been gutted in the fire. Within three months of accepting the money, respondent filed the complaint. This Commission in “Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Government Tool Room & Training Centre (First Appeal No.383 of 2005 disposed of on 17.05.2007) has taken the following view. “If the circumstances are such that a person requires the money and signs the voucher as receipt of full and final insurance claim, it amounts to coercive practice by the insurance company. The Commission advised that insurance company may abandon this practice and not try to snatch away the right of the insured to approach the legal forum for getting just and reasonable reimbursement. The view taken by the State Commission is in consonance with the view taken by this Commission. We do not find any substance in this contention. Next submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the settlement made by the petitioner was in accordance with the report submitted by the surveyor who had assessed the loss at Rs.1,07,000/- as the respondent had failed to produce the stock statements. This contention had been overruled by the State -5- Commission relying upon the stock statement submitted by the respondent to the bank. The State Commission rejected this contention by observing thus: “8. Next submission urged in support of this appeal is based on surveyor’s report, Annexure OP-1 and his affidavit Ext. OPW.2. While submitting his report, Surveyor has in our opinion adopted too pedantic approach while assessing the compensation payable to the respondent in the sum of Rs.1,62,85/-. To be fair to the Surveyor, we may notice that he has referred to the stock statements furnished by the respondent to his bank or from June, 2006 to December, 2006. As per these stock statements, against the required margin of Rs.1,37,915/- the respondent was having regular stocks in the range of 4 to 4 lacs plus every month, i.e. beyond the sum insured as well as the margin that he was required to maintain. These monthly stock statements are Annexures C.3 to C.7 for the months of June, 2006 to November, 2006 whereas stock statement for the month of December, 2006 is at page 31 of the complaint file. All these stock statements bear the verification of Branch Manager, regarding stocks of the value mentioned in each statement. We find no reason to -6- discard these statements for coming to the conclusion that in the month of December, 2006 respondent was having the stock of Rs.4.00 lacs plus every month. 9. At this stage, with a view to counter these stock statements, Mr. Sharma submitted that the respondent must be selling something during the course of his day to day business, as such, such amount needs to be deducted out of the stock statement for the month of December, 2006. We would have accepted this position but again we do not intend to do so. Reason being that position of stock statement is of a particular month and the date when it is verified. As such it is presumed that monthly stock statements given to the bank indicate the stock that was in hand and had been verified by the Bank Manager. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sharma for accepting report of the Surveyor and his affidavit, Ex.OPW.2. Likewise for these reasons, submission of Mr. Sharma that no evidence of sale between the date of submission of the last stock statement and the date of fire having not been given is also rejected.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission on this point as well. The State Commission has relied upon the statements -7- submitted to the bank much prior to the date of incident. This was a piece of evidence, which has been accepted by the State Commission. We cannot interfere with the orders passed by the fora below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under which this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act. Dismissed. No merits. Dismissed in limine. | 
