IMPORTANT POINT
Claimant cannot claim more amount after voluntarily signing discharge voucher.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—Is the complainant estopped from claiming the residue amount of his original claim after it has executed the discharge voucher with the insurance co. in full and final settlement. Does it seal its fate?

2. M/s Deepak Electronics & Gift Corner, the complainant/petitioner obtained a Shop Keeper Insurance Policy covering period from 14.1.2005 to 13.1.2006. A theft was committed in the shop during the night falling between 4/5.08.2005. The report was lodged with the police on 5.8.2005. According to the complainant, articles worth Rs.15 lakh approximately, were stolen. The complainant was paid a sum of Rs.8,55,750/- in full and final settlement of the claim as against the original claim in the sum of Rs.14,64,198/- by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the opposite party. Thereafter, complainant protested. According to the survey report, the complainant had suffered loss to the extent of Rs.8,55,789/-.

3. Thereafter, the complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum wherein it was prayed that New India Assurance Co. Ltd., opposite party, be directed to pay the complainant the balance amount of Rs.6,08,409/- with interest @18% p.a. and pay damages in the sum of Rs.2 lakh and Rs. 5 lakh towards mental agony and unfair trade practices. The District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by that order, the insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Now, the complainant has filed the present revision petition.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. Before adverting to his arguments, it is necessary to reproduce the discharge voucher which runs as follows:

“Settlement Intimation Voucher

ClAIM NO. 451800/48/05/34/9000002 Srl. No. : 1

Dev. Officer 63 / Bank Assurance AGENT 900010/Corporation Bank

Received from the NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. the sum of RUPEES EIGHT LAKH FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE ONLY which I/we agree to accept in full/partial satisfaction and discharge or my/our claim upon the company under Policy No. 451800/48/04/34/0000055 in respect of CORP. BANK A/C M/S DEEPAK ELECTRONICS ..Rs.8,55,789.00

Signature …………………Sd/-………..

Name CORP. BANK A/C M/S DEEPAK ELECTRONIC

Partner

Please affix Rubber Stamp of issuing Office Address (Sign Across the Revenue Stamp)”

5. He has also invited our attention towards the report of surveyor:

“Value at risk & availability of sum insured

As on the date of burglary the total stock in hand at the shop as per trading account was Rs.2446717. After adjusting negative balance in model no. 3200 & 6020 the value aggregates to Rs.2494165. As against the above the sum insured is Rs.2000000 which would mean as under insurance of 19.81%.

The insured submitted Police Final investigation report dated 20.03.2006, copy of which is enclosed in annexure- V. According to the report the police have closed the case on 30.12.2005 and the culprits have not been traced. We understand that the police have returned empty boxes/cartons from where the burglars have stolen the mobile phones to the insured and the insured have been advised to keep proper custody of the same until further instructions from the insurers. “Amount (Rs.)

Loss Assessment

Valuation of 329 mobile phones

181 NOKIA mobile phones as per claim statement Rs.830938

80 NOKIA mobile phones without IMEI nos. as per claim statement after adjustment. Rs..279720

68 nos. of other Hand sets Rs.385700 1496358

Less: Items not considered for indemnity

(i) Against Model No. N 2650-1 no. excess claimed (Para-6) Rs. 4627

(ii) Against Model No. N 6101-1 no. excess claimed (Para-6) Rs. 6396

(ii) Claim for 68 nos. of other hand sets not considered for indemnity (reasons stated in para 5) Rs.385700

iii) Discrepancy in physical quantities of NOKIA items as per para 6

Rs. 32434 429157

Under insurance @19.81% 1067201

211412

Insurer