Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member—This is an appeal against the order dated 3rd March, 1993 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State at Bombay in Complaint No. 50 of 1992 by which it directed the opposite party (appellant herein) to settle the complainant’s claim of Rs. 1,47,400/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint i.e., 12th February, 1992 till payment.

2. The facts as gathered from the record are that the complainant (respondent herein) is a contractor. At the time of taking insurance on 23rd March, 1990 the contract value was declared at Rs. 45 lacs. The same was increased from time to time upto Rs. 1.35 crores on 7th June, 1990 after obtaining the necessary permission for construction from Bombay Municipal Corporation and other concerned authorities. The enhanced value of the risk was accepted by the Insurance Company. On 15th June, 1990 there were heavy rains. The compound wall was damaged and collapsed causing loss of Rs. 1,47,500/- to the complainant. The complainant lodged a claim with the Insurance Companyappellant herein. The Insurance Company inquired from the complainant the total value of the proposed construction. The complainant vide letter dated the 10th October, 1990 (which is .Annexure-III at page 31 of the paper book) informed that the total erected value would be Rs. 2.20 crores. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 1,13,135.27. After deducting the salvage value and 44.31% for under-insurance and less excess clause, the amount payable to the complainant was claculated at Rs. 48,550/-. A pre-receipt/ voucher was sent to the complainant (which is at page 43 of the paper book). The complainant agreed to accept Rs. 48,550/- in full satisfaction and discharge of his claim under the policy and signed the voucher on 28th February, 1991. The voucher was also signed by the Bank. That amount was paid to the complainant on 5th March, 1991. However, the complainant filed a complaint dated the 19th July, 1991 alleging that they have been cheated by the Insurance Company.

3. The opposite party contested the complaint and pleaded that by his proposal dated the 27th November, 1989 the complainant made a proposal for obtaining the insurance of his commercial building under the Contractors All Risk Insurance Policy. Under the head ‘SUM INSURED’ the complainant represented to the insurers that the contract value of the work was Rs. 45 lacs and represented that the estimated construction period was 12 months and sought the insurance cover for the period from 22nd November, 1989 to 21st November, 1990. Based on that proposal the policy of insurance was issued to the complainant. Subsequently, inspite of declaring the contract value as Rs. 45 lacs, the complainant went on asking for increased sum assured from time to time and lastly on 7th June, 1990 the sum assured was increased from Rs. 1.10 crores to Rs. 1.35 crores. When the claim occurred on 15th June, 1990 the Surveyor went into the question of the adequacy of the sum insured. In reply to the Surveyor’s query the complainant confirmed under his letter dated the 10th October, 1990 that the completed value of the contract work would be Rs. 2.20 crores. Thus, it was very clear that there was an under insurance of the property at the material time of the loss. Accordingly, the claim was proposed for settlement at Rs. 48,550/- in full and final settlement of the claim. On the basis of the discharge voucher signed by the complainant a cheque was sent to the complainant on 5th March, 1991. The cheque was accepted by the complainant. According to. the Insurance Company there has been no negligence or deficiency in the service as the claim was promptly settled and that the complainant is also estopped from now challenging the settlement.

4. The State Commission came to the conclusion that there was no logic in the assessment of loss made by the Surveyor as against the claim for Rs. 1,47,400