M/S. PAWAN AUTO STORE vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

The petitioner / complainant obtained an insurance cover from the respondent in respect of the motor parts etc. stored in his shop at 512, A/1, Meera Patti, Transport Nagar, Dhuman Ganj, Allahabad, for the period from 23.8.2007 to 22.08.2008, for a sum assured of Rs.10,50,000/-. A fire broke out in the shop of the complainant on 23.11.2007, leading to damage of the stock kept in the shop. On a claim being lodged by the petitioner / complainant, a surveyor was duly appointed to assess the loss. The surveyor recommended payment of Rs.4,35,667/- to the complainant. The respondent paid the aforesaid amount to the petitioner after getting a discharge voucher / receipt executed from it. After receiving the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,35,667/- vide bank draft dated 07.3.2008, the petitioner / complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the insurer which inter-alia alleged that the claim was settled at Rs.4,35,667/- and the aforesaid amount was received by the complainant in full and final settlement of its claim. It was also claimed in the reply filed by the respondent that the actual loss of the petitioner / complainant was not more than the amount paid to him.

The District Forum having ruled in favour of the petitioner / complainant, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 14.9.2017 the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner / complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

It is not in dispute that a receipt accepting the amount of Rs. 4,35,667/- in full and final settlement of its claim was actual executed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner / complainant in this regard is that initially he had executed a receipt accepting the aforesaid amount in part payment of his claim but on the next day, he was again summoned to the office of the insurer and was told that the cheque issued to him would not be paid unless he executed another receipt accepting the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement of the claim. Thus, according to the petitioner / complainant, the receipt was executed by him under coercion. The aforesaid plea taken by the petitioner / complainant however, could not be substantiated before the fora below. Having already received the cheque of Rs. 4,35,667/-, the complainant / petitioner was under no compulsion to execute a second receipt accepting the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement of his claim. He could simply have presented the cheque to his bank instead of succumbing to the alleged pressure on him.

During the course of hearing I specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether after executing the receipt, receiving the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,35,667/- in full and final settlement of his claim, the petitioner / complainant had sent a letter to the insurer alleging therein that the receipt was executed under pressure or that he was told by the officials of the insurance company that the cheque issued to him will not be honoured unless such a receipt was executed by him. Having taken instructions from the petitioner, who is present in the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant submits that no such letter was written to the insurer. The failure of the petitioner / complainant to register a protest even after receiving the payment of Rs. 4,35,667/- from the insurer clearly shows that the plea taken by him is just an afterthought and in fact he had accepted the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement of his claim, without any coercion or pressure from the insurer. The view taken by the State Commission therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.