A complainant who has received the claim amount in full and final settlement from the insurer cannot file a complaint before the Consumer Commission. The complainant's remedy lies in pursuing a civil suit.

Mr. Justice S.S. Dewan, President—This is a complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the opposite parties, which will for the sake of brevity, will hereinafter to be referred as the ‘insurer’. Facts as stated in the complaint are these: —

2. The complainant (insured) is a partnership firm. Mr. Vijay Kumar Jain is one of the partners of the firm. The complainant took a theft/burglary Policy No. 23144/46/90/002/00105/00016 from the insurer, which was for the period from 11.4.1989 to 10.4.1990. The sum insured was Rs. 545,000/-. It is alleged that during the period between 7.30 P.M. on 11.11.1989 to 8.00 A.M. on 13.11.1989, a theft through burglary occurred in the jewellery shop of the complainant. The complainant lodged F.I.R. No. 109 with Police Station, Mohali on 13.11.1989 for investigation and on 27.11.1989 he filed a claim to the tune of Rs. 4,63,733/- to the insurer (Annexure P.3). M/S. N.K. Chhabra & Company, Surveyor and Loss Access or duly appointed by the insurer, assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 4,17,000/-. Capt A.N. Chopra, an Investigator appointed by the insurer had also confirmed the assessment of loss as Rs. 4,17,000/-. It was further alleged in the complaint that due to some extraneous reasons M/s. N.K. Chhabra & Co. submitted a second survey report regarding the loss suffered by the complainant, curtailing the loss assessment from Rs. 4,17,000/- to about Rs. 2,98,000/- without affording any opportunity or representation in the matter to the complainant. It was pleaded by the complainant that the total loss was to the tune of Rs. 4,17,000/- for the insured items whereas the insurer had paid about Rs. 2,98,000/- to the insured. The complainant filed the complaint on 26.8.1991 praying that the balance amount of the loss i.e. Rs. 1,19,189/- with interest @ 24% per annum may be awarded to the insured. He also claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for the heavy losses suffered due to the diminished business activities due to theft etc.

3. The opposite party submitted the version of the case on 30.9.1991 opposing the complaint on various grounds. Six preliminary objections were also raised regarding the maintainability of the complaint. It is not necessary to produce all the preliminary objections. However, the third objection was to the effect that the claim of the claimants had been paid and satisfied under the terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant in token of the acceptance of the same had given a discharge receipt in full and final settlement of his claim and therefore, the complaint was liable te be dismissed on this ground alone.

4. The aforesaid preliminary objection was strenuously pressed by the opposite party by their learned Counsel It was contended both on principle and recent precedent that once the amount has been received in full and final settlement of his claim, by the complainant he is debarred from filing the complaint before this Commission. It was the stand of the opposite party that in this context, the only remedy of the insured lies in his approaching the ordinary Civil Courts and no relief can be granted under the Act. Inevitably, this position has been forcefully controverted on behalf of the complainant both in the replication and in the submissions of their learned Counsel. To buttress his arguments, Mr. Dharampaul Gupta Advocate on behalf of the opposite party has placed primary reliance on an unreported decision of the National Commission in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. I (1992) CPJ 292 (NC) (Original Petition No. 52 of 1991, decided on November 28, 1991).

5. On the other hand, Mr. Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that the insurance company had coerced the complainant into accepting the settlement willingly and voluntarily and therefore, he was not bound by the same. We do not find any substance in this contention. Somewhat