The acceptance of settlement amount and the exercise of revisional powers by the National Commission were the central legal points established in the judgment.

ORDER

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member - Petitioner by way of an affidavit sent by post, has challenged order dated 21.1.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, 'state Commission') in FA No. 45 of 2009. This affidavit has been treated as a revision petition by the Registry.

2. Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant had taken house insurance with the respondent/opposite party for one year from 11.8.2005 to 10.8.2006. Due to heavy rain on 27/28.10.2005 and 5/6.11.2005, the flood water entered into the house, causing severe damage, not only to the building, but also to the household articles, for which, a claim for Rs. 38,050 was lodged, before the respondent. The respondent instead of paying the amount, as claimed, paid only a sum of Rs. 17,844 and obtained a discharge voucher on 11.4.2006, as if, the petitioner has failed to prove the damages. Premium was collected on the basis of the accepted value and having collected the premium, the respondent is not entitled to reject the claim, when the value of the goods is claimed, based upon damage. Since, respondent has failed to pay the amount, it had committed deficiency. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to difference of amount namely Rs. 20,206 with interest thereon, in addition to a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony.

3. The respondent admitting the Home Insurance Policy taken by the petitioner, as well as admitting the damage caused to the house, as well as to the articles to some extent, opposed the claim of the petitioner, inter alia alleging that the claim is barred by limitation, Further, the claim of the petitioner at Rs. 38,050 is not based upon correct assessment. As per conditions of the policy assessing the damage at Rs. 17,844, when respondent offered the amount, the same was accepted by the petitioner in full and final settlement, for which he had issued receipt also. Since, the settlement had already taken place, petitioner is estopped from claiming the amount. Moreover, the claim being already settled, no question of negligence and deficiency, warranting any compensation.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (for short District Forum ) dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 21.10.2008.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same, vide impugned order.

6. This is how the matter has reached before this Commission.

7. Petitioner himself has appeared in person and argued his case.

8. The grievance of petitioner is that due to heavy rains he has suffered a loss of Rs. 38,050 and has claimed this amount as per the policy issued by the respondent. However, petitioner had been forced to settle for a lesser amount i.e. Rs. 17,844. Under these circumstances, respondent should pay him the balance claim of Rs. 20,206 with interest as well as damages and cost of the complaint.

9. It is an admitted fact that petitioner has already received a sum of Rs. 17,844 in full and final settlement of his claim made with the respondent. Petitioner's grievance is that he was forced to accept this amount and respondent is laible to pay the balance amount of Rs. 20,206.

10. District Forum in its order has held:

"The O.P. would contend the claim made by the complainant assisted by as assessor as per the terms and conditions and only after the complainant had agreed to the assessment settle the claim for a sum of Rs. 17,844 and on the due discharge given by the complainant in full and final settlement issued the cheque and receipts sent acknowledged by the complainant. Now the complainant is estopped for making further claim on the same cause of action when himself agreed to the assessment and settlement. The cheque was received without interest at the time of settlement. In fact complainant by his letter dated 30.3.2006 approved but settlement and requested the O.P. to make payment list Ex. B1 We feel that the complainant is estopped fr