The court upheld the view that a discharge voucher does not preclude subsequent claims under the Consumer Protection Act if evidence of coercion is absent.

1. The present Complaint is filed under S.21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

2. The Complainant is running a business of sales and service of two wheelers motor vehicles along with sale of spares, accessories and allied articles at Nandurbar District under the name and style ˜M/s. Ashwin Auto Services' since 1996. Opposite Party No. 1 is Insurance Company and Opposite Party No. 2 is the Surveyor. On14.7.2015, the Complainant purchased Motor Dealer Package Insurance Policy, from Opposite Party No. 1, vide Policy No. OG - 16-2003-4095-00000005, for a sum of Rs. 4.44 crores, valid from 14.7.2016 to 13.7.2016.

3. The case of the Complainant is that on 15.3.2016 at around 2.30 a.m., fire broke out in the premises of the Complainant, causing damage of new vehicles, spare parts, furniture etc. The Complainant informed the Police, Fire Department, and Opposite Party No. 1. Opposite Party No. 1 deputed Opposite Party No. 3 / Mr. Parvinder Kumar Bhatia as Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who visited the place of the incident on 18.3.2016. The Surveyor instructed the Complainant not to remove the debris until the process is complete. Debris remained scattered for 292 days, as a result the Complainant suffered loss of business of Rs. 1,91,096 per month as per last income tax return. The total loss of business incurred by the Complainant was Rs. 19,10,957.The Surveyor sought several documents from the Complainant, vide letter dated 18.3.2016. The Complainant informed the Surveyor that all the records including accounts books, purchase order, bills, etc. were lost and burnt in the fire. This fact was also mentioned in the Panchnama dated 15.3.2016 prepared by Mr. Yadhav Bhadane, Investigating Officer, Nandurbar City Police Station. The Complainant, however, provided all the documents which were available with him. The Surveyor submitted his report dated 18.8.2016. The Opposite Party, however, did not provide the Survey Report to the Complainant. The Complainant received an email from the Surveyor stating that the loss caused to the Complainant was of Rs. 71.48 lakh against spares only. The assessment of building, damaged vehicles, workshop equipment, furniture and fixtures, interiors, cash in showroom were not considered, though these items were insured under the Policy purchased by the Complainant. The Complainant did not accept the amount as they suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 2,75,00,000. The Surveyor did not consider accessories and spare parts in List C amounting to Rs. 40,57,486. The Insurance Company offered compensation of Rs. 37,53,635.67 to the Complainant, which was accepted by the Complainant under coercion as they were in financial constraint. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the instant Complaint with the following prayer:
(a) Damages of worth Rs. 2,75,00,000 (Rs. Two Crores Seventy Five Lakhs) may be allowed and recovered from Opponents jointly & severally.
(b) Fine of Rs. 50,00,000 (Rs. Fifty L\lakh) for harrassments (physical, mental & financial) to applicant from Opponents jointly & severally may be granted.
(c) Expenses for communication to Opponents by applicants worth Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. One Lakh) maybe allowed from Opponents jointly & severally.
(d) Loss of Business - The Complainant had suffered loss for his 292 days (approx. 10 months) income. The Complainant earning income from business was worth of Rs. 1,91,096 (Rs. One Lakh Ninety One Thousand and Ninety Six only) per month as per his last Income T