ORDER

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 21.11.2011 of the State Commission in appeals no. 1051 and no. 1171 of 2009 arising out of the Order dated 03.06.2009 of the District Commission in complaint no. 566 of 2005.

2. We heard arguments from the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the petitioner herein) and for the complainant firm (the respondent herein), and also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 03.06.2009 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 21.11.2011 of the State Commission and the petition.

3. The matter essentially relates to the (correct) assessment of loss in respect of the insurance claim in question.

Briefly, the complainant firm took an insurance policy from the insurance co. for sum insured of Rs. 20 lakh. The premium was paid. The policy was valid. During the subsistence of the policy an incident of fire took place in the insured premises.

The insurance co. settled the claim at Rs. 3,66,576/-, principally on the basis of its surveyor’s report.

The complainant firm was dissatisfied with the quantum allowed and filed a complaint.

The District Commission in its appraisal made its own assessment of the loss at Rs. 9,38,412/-. It ordered the insurance co. to pay the said amount of Rs. 9,38,412/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 12.07.2005 i.e. the date of filing of the complaint till realization along with compensation of Rs. 2000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-.

Both sides, i.e. the insurance co. and the complainant firm, appealed before the State Commission, the insurance co. for setting aside of the Order of the District Commission and the complainant firm for enhancement in compensation.

The State Commission vide its common Order dated 21.11.2011 dismissed the appeal of the insurance co. and partly allowed the appeal of the complainant. In its appraisal it made its own assessment of the loss at Rs. 14,72,952.15. It ordered the insurance co. to pay Rs. 14,72,952.15 (-) Rs. 3,66,576.00 = Rs.11,063,76.15/- i.e. the difference between its assessment of the loss and the amount at which the claim had been settled by the insurance co. to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation along with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-.

The insurance co. preferred revision before this Commission.

4. Learned counsel for the insurance co. submits that the insurance co. settled the claim on the basis of its surveyor’s report and with the consent of the complainant firm. In its written version filed before the District Commission the insurance co. referred quite extensively to the contents of its surveyor’s report and inter alia also averred that the “settlement of the claim was done on the basis of” its surveyor’s report and after taking “full consent” of the complainant firm to accept an amount of Rs. 3,66,576/-.

Learned counsel argues that since the complainant firm had given its ‘consent’ to settle its claim at the said amount of Rs. 3,66,576/-, it could not have thereafter agitated before the District Commission.

5. We note that the aspect re ‘consent’ has been aptly dealt with by the State Commission vide its impugned Order. We do not deem it necessary to dwell much on this point, it is well settled that giving ‘consent’, under any kind of duress or in a situation where there is no other alternative but to give ‘consent’ (else the insurance co. would not pay any amount whatsoever) or in various other circumstances which have been well elaborated upon by the consumer protection fora from time to time, does not take away the right to agitate. The contention made on behalf of the insurance co. on this count lacks merit and is hence not acceptable.

6. Learned counsel however further argues that the claim was settled principally on the basis of its surveyor’s report.

7. We may f