IMPORTANT POINT
Mere execution of discharge voucher would not always deprive consumer from preferring claim with respect to deficiency in service if he is able to prove that such discharge voucher had been obtained from him under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances.

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—The issue involved in this case, is whether the complainant after giving discharge voucher for full and final settlement without any protest to the Insurance Company, agitate the matter again before the Consumer Fora nearly 11 months after accepting the amount.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Mahindra Voyager Jeep for Rs.5,07,000/- by obtaining bank finance and was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. As the said vehicle suffered a major accident, the Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who had initially assessed the loss at Rs.3,40,000 and subsequently he scaled it down to Rs.2,40,000/- stating that the market value of the said vehicle had gone down. He also fixed the salvage value at Rs.50,000/- after deducting the salvage value, Rs.1,90,000/- was paid through cheque which was accepted by the Bank as well as the complainant as full and final settlement on 31.07.2001.

3. Subsequently on 29-06-2002, a complaint was filed before the District Forum praying for balance amount of Rs. 3,16,000/- along with interest and compensation. The District Forum awarded Rs.3,16.000/- with 9% interest per annum from 01.07.2002 till the date of payment with Rs.1,000/- as cost.

4. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company had filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal mainly on the grounds that there was no protest letter at the time of accepting the amount as full and final settlement and the discharge voucher was executed by the complainant as well as the Mahindra and Mahindra Finance. Further, the complaint was filed after a lapse of considerable period from the date of the discharge voucher. In addition, there was no evidence to hold that discharge voucher was obtained fraudulently or by exercising undue influence. Accordingly, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal while dismissing the complaint.

5. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the complainant has filed this revision petition before us.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 95 days for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed. The main reasons given in the application is that since the impugned order was passed ex-parte, the petitioner was unaware of the said order and came to know of it much latter. The reasons given in this application are not at all convincing. Hence, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of Punjab v. B.S. Agriculture Industries.1 However, we are not going to dismiss the same on the grounds of delay alone. Hence, we have decided to consider the matter on merits also.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner quoted from the revision petition: “can applicant apply for the claim against the insurance company even though he had signed the voucher after full and final settlement? Also even though applicant had accepted the insurance amount but in which position applicant had accepted it? Whether applicant is eligible to get the remaining amount of the insurance policy from non-applicant? We feel right to take all this points into consideration. Applicant had accepted the insurance amount of Rs.1,90,000/- under protest. We have to take into consideration that in which position applicant had signed the voucher. While granting the claim of insurance, Insurance Company have not disbursed the amount till customer had signed the valid discharge voucher but customer cannot allowed accept the insured amount under protest. So the customers have to accept the amount against his will. Due to financial problem customer accepts the amount against his will, which is very true. We do not feel to consider of non-applicant’s say that applicant cannot claim for remaining amount because he had accepted th