PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 23.08.2007 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 174 of 2005 National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Kuka Rice & General Mills by which, while allowing appeal, set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was running rice and general mills at Village Sri Jiwan Nagar, District Sirsa. Complainant got insured its entire building from OP/Respondent for a sum of Rs.28,50,000/-. Due to heavy storm and rain on 16.4.2001, two godowns of the complainant were totally damaged. On 19.4.2001, complainant reported loss in respect of two godowns to the police and complainant also submitted application to the authorities for spot inspection. Tehsildar inspected premises and submitted his report on 24.12.2001, wherein it has been mentioned that two godowns had been totally damaged due to heavy storm and rain. Complainant suffered loss of Rs.5,09,520/- and filed claim with the OP. OP harassed the complainant and illegally and arbitrarily paid a sum of Rs.65,979/- without assigning any reason or justification. Complainant approached OP to make payment of balance amount of Rs.4,43,641/-, but as payment was not made, complainant alleging deficiency of service filed complaint before District Forum. OP filed written statement and submitted that complainant was estopped from filing complaint after receiving amount assessed by the accessor as full and final settlement vide receipt dated

28.3.2002. Loss alleged by the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,09,620/- was denied and prayed -1- for dismissal of complaint. District Forum after hearing both the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed OP/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest and cost. On appeal, learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint on the ground of receiving payment by complainant as full and final settlement because this payment was received under compelling circumstances, hence, revision petition be allowed and order of State Commission be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law which does not call for any inference, hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that payment was received under protest on 28.3.2012 on account of financial constraints, hence, petitioner is entitled to get rest of the amount as ordered by learned District Forum. Letter dated 28.3.2012 reads as under: ir, We hereby agree and accept net claim amount Rs.65,979/- as full and final settlement of our claim on account of loss by storm to our factory building occurred on 16.4.2001. Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sd/- Seal Partner 6. Perusal of aforesaid letter reveals that Rs.65,979/- were accepted by complainant as full and final settlement of his claim on account of loss by storm to the factory building. Nowhere it has been stated that this amount has been received under protest. Even voucher signed by complainant also does not reveal this fact that amount has been received under protest. There is no averment in the complaint that amount was received under protest and in such circumstances, this argument is devoid of force that amount was received by the complainant under protest. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after executing discharge voucher in full satisfaction of his claim, complaint can be filed for recovery of balance amount. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on AIR 1999 SC 3027 United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills which has also been referred in impugned order, but this citation does not help to the petitioner rather helps to the respondent. Honle Apex Court observed as under: n the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, mis-representation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints. The National Commission however granted relief solely on the ground of delay in the settlement of claim under the policies. The mere delay of a couple of months would not have authorized the National Commission to grant relief particularly when the insurer had not complained of such a delay at the time of acceptance of the insurance amount under the policy. We are not satisfied with the reasoning of the National Commission and are of the view that the State Commission was justified in dismissing the complaints though on different reasonings. 8. Complainant has nowhere leveled allegation of fraud, coercion, etc. in the complaint and in the absence of such allegations merely because payment was delayed, it cannot be inferred that complainant received payment under coercion, etc. He further placed reliance on II (1997) CPJ 77 (NC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. New Bharat Rice Mills in which it was held that complainant can challenge the award in spite of execution of discharge voucher in full and final settlement. This citation also does not help to the petitioner because in that case State Commission observed that complainant established the fact of signing the voucher under coercion. In the present case, complainant failed to prove any coercion and in such circumstances, once complainant received payment in full and final settlement of the claim, he is estopped from filing complaint for residue amount. Learned State Commission while allowing appeal has rightly placed reliance on 2003 (1) CLT 125 (NC) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Srinivas Trading Co., 1997 CCJ 1362 (NC) Dalip Kumar Wamanrao Darya Parkar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2000 CCJ 773 Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bashir Ahmad Rangrez and Brothers and 2007 (1) CPR 80 (SC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd. and rightly accepted appeal and dismissed complaint. Learned State Commission has observed as under: n addition in this case, the complainant has accepted the net claim amount of Rs.65,979/- as full and final settlement of the claim on account of the loss caused to the building due to storm and heavy rains occurred on 16.4.2001. The letter dated 28.3.2002 has been placed on record as Ex. R-2. The voucher dated 28.3.2002 Ex.R-3 signed by the complainant also reveals that the amount of Rs.65,979/- was accepted without any protest. The complaint was filed on 27.6.2002, so to say after three months of the acceptance of Rs.65,979/- by the complainant. The only reason stated for acceptance of the above stated amount in para No.9 of the complaint is as under: hat the respondent took near about one year in the settlement of the claim of the complainant and during this entire period, the respondent put the complainant to unnecessary harassment, hardship, fatigue etc., whereas, such a claim ought to have decided within a period of one month, as per norms of the respondents It would be apparent from the contents of above para that no even a word has been stated with regard to the financial constraints. Even no details of the financial constraints have been furnished in this para. Rather, the only grouse made in this para is that the opposite parties had taken about one year in settlement of the claim. The reason for this delay has been explained from the side of the opposite party. In this case, the complainant had also approached the Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar had made an enquiry with regard to the loss caused. The Tehsildar had submitted his report dated 24.12.2001. In that report he has not given any amount of the damage suffered by the complainant. Even the complainant has submitted the estimate to the opposite party on 10.1.2002 and the claimed amount was received by the complainant on 28.3.2002. One also cannot ignore that the surveyor had submitted his report dated 11.3.2002. The question of delay has been considered by the Honle Supreme Court in case Polymat India P. Ltd. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2004 (10) Scale 99. The facts of the case were that fire had taken place on 13.1.1993 in which the insured goods were reportedly gutted by the fire. The insurance company appointed a surveyor and surveyor had sent his report dated

5.11.1993 which was received by the company on 9.11.1993. There were some discrepancies in the surveyor report for which insurance company as per letter dated 14.12.1993 sought clarification from the surveyor which was replied on 22.4.1994 by the surveyor. The insurance company thereafter took the decision and informed the complainant by letter dated 1.7.1994 for approval of the claim of both the polices. Under these circumstances the court held that there was no delay in payment and levy of interest @18% by the Commission was set aside by the Honle Supreme Court. In the present case the claim was finally settled after receiving the surveyor report dated 11.3.2002 whereby the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.69,523/- which was received by the complainant after deducting a sum of Rs.3500/- under the excess loss claim was paid Rs.65,979/- in full and final settlement against the receipt as per letter dated 28.3.2002 without any qualification. Therefore, it cannot be said that the payment has been made belatedly. All these aspects have not been given due consideration by the District Forum while accepting the complaint and for that reason the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained 9. Discharge voucher was signed by complainant on 28.3.2002, but complaint was filed on 2.7.2002 meaning thereby after more than 3 months. Had there been any fraud, coercion, etc. on the complainant while signing discharge voucher, he would have filed complaint immediately for the balance amount. Non-filing of complaint for such a long period depicts that there was no fraud, coercion, etc. on the complainant and complainant was estopped from filing the complaint and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to cost. ......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER