ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Presiding Member
1. In this case, M/s. Vasavi Traders, Ankireddypalem, Guntur, had insured various varieties of tobacco for Rs. 13 lakh. During the currency of the Insurance Policy, on the intervening night of 19/20.8.2001 at about 0030 hrs., the entire stock was burnt due to fire accident along with the godown which was inspected by the fire authorities, police authorities and electrical authorities and a certificate was also issued to that effect. The complainant had informed the opposite parties about the accident and claimed Rs. 13 lakh. It is the case of the complainant that a Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company who assessed the total loss of stock worth Rs. 10 lakh and an initial amount of Rs. 3,45,968 was paid to the complainant for which the Insurance Company obtained signatures on several forms including some blank forms. When he approached the Insurance Company for the balance claim, he was told that he had given a discharge voucher for full and final settlement. He filed a complaint before the District Forum which was contested by the Insurance Company stating that the complainant had given a discharge voucher and hence he was estopped from making further claims. After analysing the case in great detail, the District Forum ordered payment of Rs. 9,54,037 to the complainant by the Insurance Company and dismissed the complaint accepting the argument of the Insurance Company that as the claim was fully settled as per the discharge voucher, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company.
2. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed appeal before the State Commission wherein it was urged that the Surveyor had assessed the price of tobacco at Rs. 10 per kg. The complainant submitted that the ITC published that the price was Rs. 26 per kg. whereas it was the case of the complainant that though ITC published that the price was Rs. 26 per kg., he had only claimed Rs. 20.30 per kg. The Surveyor in his report, on the basis of his inquiry, assessed the loss at Rs. 10 per kg. The State Commission thought it fit to grant average of the amount claimed by the complainant and assessed by the Surveyor, i.e., at Rs. 15 per kg. Accordingly, the differential amount of Rs. 2,53,825 with interest at the rate of 7.5% was directed to be paid and Rs. 2,000 as costs.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Insurance Company has filed this revision petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant has given discharge voucher for full and final settlement. Hence they are estopped from claiming further amount and, secondly, the complainant had taken contradictory stands in his complaint that though he had lodged a claim of Rs. 13 lakh, there was inconsistency in his complaint.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner who reiterated the stand taken by the Insurance Company in the lower Fora. The factum of fire accident, the quantum of stock which was destroyed and the reports of the policy and fire force authorities are not disputed. The disputed issues are:
(i) whether the complainant can claim additional amount after signing the discharge voucher towards full and final settlement; and
(ii) what is the rate at which the price of tobacco stored (which was destroyed by fire) should be assessed?
5. The complainant has submitted in his complaint that after 7 days of receipt of Rs. 3,45,968, the complainant had approached the Insurance Company (O.P. 1) and demanded the balance amount which was declined and he was asked to approach O.P. 2. He further submitted that since the entire stock was burnt and the business had come to a stand still and because of financial crisis and heavy loss of interest, the complainant was constrained to sign on the discharge voucher, which was in a printed format. Therefore, he had no option but to file a complaint for the balance amount. This we feel is an act of coercive bargaining indulged in by the Insurance Company. A distressed insured person, who has lost all means of earning his livelihood in a catastrophic fire, has no other choice but to accept any amount as an initial payment in the first instance.
6. Exhibit A-13 is the price document issued by M/s. ITC and Godfrey Philips India Ltd. showing the price at Rs. 26 and Rs. 26.80 respectively. Without any published document the Surveyor has arrived at a price of Rs. 10 per kg. This assessment cannot hold water. However, the State Commission moderated the claim of the complainant and arrived at an in-between price of Rs. 15 per kg. which we consider it quite fair.
Accordingly, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.