IMPORTANT POINT
Filing of a complaint even when there is a settlement to receive a particular amount is, not barred; but it has to be proved that agreement to accept a particular amount was on account of coercion.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short ‘National Commission’). The National Commission by the impugned order dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the order passed by the Consumer District Forum, Hissar (in short ‘District Forum’) and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short ‘State Commission’).

3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass.

Claim was lodged by the respondent who had obtained a shopkeeper insurance policy of the appellant company on 15.7.2001. A claim was lodged with the appellant stating that on account of fire insured articles got destroyed. The Surveyors and Loss Assessors assessed the net loss at Rs.2,82,301/-. It is the case of the appellant that respondent without demur accepted the sum of Rs.2,72,301/- in full and final settlement and accordingly payment of Rs.2,72,301/- was made. Thereafter a complaint was lodged before the District Forum claiming that his claim was Rs.9 lacs and he should be indemnified to the extent of Rs.9 lacs less Rs.2,72,301/- which had been received by him. Appellant objected to the complaint stating that since the respondent had accepted the amount without any protest no further claim survives and the complaint was not maintainable.

4. The District Forum noted the rival stand including the stand of the respondent that the so called settlement was signed by him under coercion and, therefore, the claim petition was maintainable. The District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.4,95,000/-. In appeal, the State Commission dismissed the appeal after noticing the rival stands which were reiteration of the stands taken before the District Forum. A revision, as noted above, was filed before the National Commission which dismissed the same holding as follows:

“In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference. The District Forum as well as State Commission considered the various statements including Income-tax and Sales Tax returns as well as statements submitted to the bank and also surveyor’s report. In our view, the assessment by the surveyor in the present case cannot be accepted because surveyor has observed that even though the shoes were affected by water and smoke, yet the loss would be only 30% and thereafter reduced the assessment of loss, in our view this was unjustified. Hence revision petition is dismissed.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though a claim can be entertained even when there is a settlement to receive a particular amount, yet the same is subject to the condition that the earlier settlement was obtained under coercion and/or was not on account of free will. In the instant case it is submitted this vital aspect has been lost sight of by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission.

6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that immediately after the so called settlement was arrived at grievance, was lodged with the authority stating that settlement was not free and fair.

7. In United India Insurance. v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and Ors.,1 (1999 (6) SCC 400), it was, inter alia, observed as follows:

“4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is true that the award of interest is not specifically authorised under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called “the Act”) but in view of our judgment in Sovintorg (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of India, Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1992 decided on 11.8.1999, we are of the opinion that in appropriate cases the forum and the commissions under the Act are authorised to grant reasonable interest under the facts and circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficienc