A Discharge Voucher must be signed unconditionally and voluntarily; claims of duress require substantial evidence.

1. This Appeal has been filed under S.19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , hereinafter referred to as the 'Act", challenging the Order dated 11.6.2012 in C. C. No. 148 of 2009 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission".
The Appellant herein, National Insurance Company Limited, was the Opposite Party before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Insurance Co.".
The Respondent herein, M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., was the Complainant before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainant Co.".

2. Heard arguments of learned Counsel for both sides and perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 11.6.2012 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal.

3. Admitted facts are that a Marine Cargo Open Policy (Declaration) was taken by the Complainant Co. The premium was paid. The policy was valid. The insured machinery (rock drilling equipment) was shipped by sea, then, during surface transportation to the project site, the trailer carrying the machine met with an accident. An F.I.R. was lodged. The Insurance Co. was intimated. Survey was conducted. The Complainant Co. claimed 'total loss". The Insurance Co. settled on 'non standard" basis. Discharge Voucher and Letter of Subrogation were signed by the Complainant Co. The claim settlement amount was received by the Complainant Co. Thereafter the Complainant Co. contended that it was constrained to sign the Discharge Voucher 'under duress", and it claimed the balance amount. The Insurance Co. did not agree. The Complainant Co. filed a Complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 11.6.2012 directed the Insurance Co. to pay the balance amount with interest and cost of litigation (para 12 of the State Commission"s Order refers). The Insurance Co. appealed before this Commission.

4. During the course of adjudication before this Commission, Order dated 4.4.2019 waspassed. The said Order reads as below:
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It has been stated by the respondent that vide order dated 4.10.2012 of this Commission, notice was issued only in respect of interest as would be clear from the following portion of the order:
"Prima facie, on merits, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission but the interest awarded @15% seems to be on higher side. Notice returnable for 6th February, 2013.
Subject to depositing the awarded amount of Rs.71,28,463 before this Commission within 6 weeks, operation of the impugned order is stayed.
Appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 to the respondent to meet the litigation and other allied expenses, which shall be de hors the result of the appeal."
On the other hand learned Counsel for the appellant states that this was prima facie feeling of this Commission but there was no final order by this Commission. Therefore, all the issues are open for arguments as raised in the appeal. He further states that vide order dated 14.5.2013, this Commission had agreed to take up the issue raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant in respect of the discharge voucher. It was stated that the discharge voucher has been signed by the complainant and that is why full and final discharge of insurance claim has been claimed by the appellant. Therefore, no claim can be filed after signing the discharge voucher.
I have carefully considered these orders of this Commission and have also considered arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties. From the order dated 4.10.2012, it is clearly brought out that