M K ENTERPRISES Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 18.08.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'State Commission') in FA No. 990/2010, vide which, while accepting appeal, the order dated 20.05.2010, passed by the District Forum, Panipat, allowing consumer complaint no. 89/2009 was set aside.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the present petitioner made consumer complaint no. 89/2009 through its proprietor Mukesh Kumar before the District Forum, Panipat against the respondent/opposite party (OP), the National Insurance Company Limited saying that he had taken a fire insurance policy bearing No. 421500/11/07/3100000003 for Rs. 3,45,00,000/- for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, covering the risk of plant, machinery and accessories in his factory. During the currency of the said policy, a fire took place in the factory premises on 07.11.2007 at about 4:30PM, due to which the complainant suffered loss of machinery, building and stocks. He lodged claim to the tune of Rs. 65,89,500/- with the respondent Insurance Company. The respondent appointed M/s. Consolidated Surveyors Private Limited to assess the loss during fire, and following the report of the surveyor, the claim was settled at Rs. 26,77,748/- and the said amount was also paid to the complainant vide discharge voucher dated 10.07.2008 through cheque drawn on Canara Bank, G.T. Road, Panipat. The amount was duly received by the complainant and the discharge voucher was signed by Mukesh Kumar, proprietor of the complainant. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant was not interested to receive the cheque for that amount, but due to threats given by the OP and also due to his financial compulsion, he received the said cheque, being part-payment of the claimed amount "under protest". He signed the voucher after getting an assurance from the OP that the matter was under consideration of the higher authorities and there was likelihood that he may get the rest of the amount within a short span of time. The complainant has stated that the surveyor had assessed the loss as Rs. 43,04,877/- but the Insurance Company appointed an investigator D.S. Chadha and following his report, the respondent arbitrarily reduced the amount payable to Rs. 26,77,748/-.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the respondent Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the complainant had accepted the said amount as 'full and final settlement' of the claim, without raising any objection or making any protest. The said amount already stands paid to the complainant and he was not entitled for any further amount. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay a further sum of Rs. 16,27,129/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from 3.07.2008 till realisation. The District Forum also allowed a sum of Rs. 2200/- as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved against this order, the Insurance Company challenged the same before the State Commission by way of FA No. 990 of 2010. The State Commission vide impugned order, accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had already received the amount offered by the Insurance Company as full and final settlement of the claim. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed before us.