(Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member) (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 23/03/1999 passed by District Forum, Nasik in Consumer Complaint No.150/95. (2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summerised as under:- The appellant/original complainant had insured her Maruti Zen Car No.MH-12-P-6977with the respondent/original opponent. The policy was comprehensive, the insurance amount was `3,30,000/- and the policy was valid for a period from 04/10/1994 to 03/10/1995. The vehicle met with an accident on 06/10/1994. In the accident, the car was extensively damaged. The car was taken to Seva Automotive Pvt.Ltd. garage who were the authorized dealer of Maruti Car. The garage carried out the inspection of damages of the car and prepared an estimate of `1,66,179/-. The appellant/original complainant submitted the claim of `1,66,179/- to the opponent. However, the opponent/respondent sanctioned an amount of `55,000/- as an insurance claim. It is the contention of the appellant/original complainant that the opponent/respondent should have sanctioned an amount of `1,66,179/-. Claiming that it amounts to deficiency on the part of opponent/respondent, the appellant/original complainant had filed a consumer complaint praying to direct the opponent/respondent to pay a balance amount of `1,11,179/- to the complainant or alternatively direct the opponent to pay an amount of `3,30,000/- being the insured estimated value of the accident vehicle. (3) The opponent/respondent resisted the complaint. The opponent/respondent contended that as per the survey report, the assessment of the loss is `90,600/- including the salvage. The complainant/appellant herself vide her letter dated 24/11/1994 expressed the willingness to settle the claim on cash loss basis. Accordingly, the opponent/respondent issued a cheque of `55,000/- in favour of the complainant/appellant and she has signed the voucher in favour of the opponent/respondent towards full and final settlement. The opponent/respondent requested for dismissing the complaint. (4) The District Forum accordingly after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint. It is against this order that the appeal is filed. (5) Notices are served to both the parties. On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Mr.Tambat argued the case. The respondent remained absent. (6) Admittedly, the accident vehicle was covered by the insurance of `3,30,000/- on the date of accident. It is also not disputed that the appellant has submitted a claim of `1,66,179/-. In support of the contention, the learned counsel has filed estimate of the repairs prepared by the authorized dealer of the vehicle. (7) The learned counsel has vehemently contended that in the said accident the appellant lost her husband and she was under a shock. He further contended that the appellant had accepted the amount of `55,000/- under the shock. He also contended that as the insurance value of vehicle is `3,30,000/-, the respondent should have paid an amount of `1,66,179/-. (8) We have gone through the order passed by the District Forum. It is a fact that the appellant herself has accepted an amount of `55,000/- as full and final payment of the claim. The appellant has unconditionally accepted the amount offered by the respondent. There is no iota of evidence to prove that the policy holder accepted the amount of claim under coercion. Once the policy holder unconditionally accepts the amount of claim, he extinguishes his right is a settled position of law. The District Forum after taking into consideration the law and facts of the case has passed the order. We do not find any merit in the appeal. We hold accordingly and pass the following order. ORDER (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) The order passed by the District Forum, Nasik dated 23/03/1999 is hereby confirmed. (3) Inform the parties accordingly. Pronounced on 15th September, 2011. | 
