The judgment establishes the principle that a consumer's right to claim further relief, despite signing a discharge voucher for full and final settlement, depends on proving coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation in obtaining the voucher.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner/Complainant being aggrieved by impugned order dated 24.5.2013, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (short, ‘State Commission’) has filed above revision petitions.

2. Brief facts are that Petitioner/Complainant insured its building machinery and raw material, etc. with Respondent/Opposite Party for the period 2.3.2009 to 1.3.2010. On 10.5.2009, a fire broke in the insured factory. As per petitioner, it suffered heavy losses of building, machinery and raw material and finished goods to the tune of Rs. 5.00 crores approximately. On receipt of information from the petitioner, respondent deputed surveyor and loss assessor namely Rohit Kumar & Co., New Delhi who conducted the Survey. Respondent paid Rs. 1,00,00,000 to the petitioner in December, 2009 as an interim amount and Rs. 1,25,92,251 was paid through cheque on 13.10.2011. According to the respondent, cheque of Rs. 1,25,92,251 was received by the petitioner in full and final settlement of petitioner’s claim and thus, payment of Rs. 2,25,92,251 (Rs. 1,00,00,000 + Rs. 1,25,92,251) was towards full and final settlement and a ‘Settlement Intimation Voucher’ was signed by the petitioner without any protest. However, the petitioner took the plea that the respondent had obtained his signatures on certain blank printed papers and the aforesaid amount was received under protest. It was further stated that it was not a full and final settlement. Further, as per the norms, the claim was required to be paid, within one month from the date of submitting the papers as demanded by the respondent, which was submitted in all respects in May, 2010. Thus, petitioner was entitled to receive the claim amount up till 30.6.2010 but petitioner was paid the amount only on 13.10.2011. It was further stated by the petitioner that in case the respondent had paid the claim amount up till June, 2010, then petitioner would have deposited the same with its Bank. According to the petitioner, it suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 19,29,000. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum seeking direction to the respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 19,29,000 along with interest @ 18% per annum from 14.10.2011, till its realization.

3. On the other hand, respondent in its written statement inter-alia took the plea that the petitioner had already been paid Rs. 1,00,00,000 in December, 2009 and Rs. 1,25,92,251 was paid through cheque on 13.10.2011 (total being Rs. 2,25,92,251) in full and final settlement of petitioner’s claim and nothing more remained payable by the respondent. It was denied that the claim was to be paid, within one month from the date of submitting the papers, as alleged in the complaint. It was further stated that the collection of requisite papers by the surveyor alone was not sufficient to pass petitioner’s claim finally, rather, it required several exercises on the part of the Surveyor and offices of the company till the claim was finally approved by the competent authority. So, there was no delay in processing petitioner’s claim. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service on their part, respondent prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint and directed the respondent to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on the delayed amount of Rs. 1,25,92,251 from 1.8.2010 to 13.10.2011 within thirty days from the date of the order, failing which amount of interest will carry further interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 2,200 was also be paid to the respondent.

5. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed (Appeal No. 192 of 2013) before the State Commission on the ground that interest awarded by the