IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 09/11/2017 in Complaint No. 130/2016 of the State Commission Punjab)

WITH IA/5582/2022 (DIRECTIONS)

M/s. Jay Jay Shirts Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondents BEFORE:

HON'BLE AVM J RAJENDRA AVSM VSM (Retd) PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER For Appellant(s): Mr. Manoj Yadav and Mr. Karan S. Negi, Advocates For Respondent(s): Mr. Mohit Arura, Mr. Paras Arora, Mr. Rajat Jain & Ms. Charu K., Advocates Dated : 08.01.2026

ORDER

Heard learned counsels for both the parties at length.

It is an admitted position that the Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy bearing No. 234001/11/2015/180 was issued by the Opposite Parties (OPs) in favour of the Complainant for the period 04.07.2014 to 03.07.2015. On 27.04.2015, an incident of fire had occurred resulting in damage and the Complainant allegedly suffering loss to the tune of Rs.49 lakhs. A claim was lodged with the OPs and the OPs appointed a Surveyor, to ascertain the claim. The surveyor conducted detailed evaluation of the loss reported and submitted his report on 18.12.2015. Based on the said report, the OPs settled the claim of the Complainant for a sum of Rs.10,38,000.

The present dispute pertains to the balance claim amount.

The Complainant has primarily contended that the surveyor committed serious errors in assessment by treating certain stock as old stock contrary to documented records produced by them, valuing partially burnt clothing material at 25% as partially damaged despite the same being worthless. The surveyor assessed raw material and finished goods on the basis of weight (kilograms). Whereas, the procurement and valuation of these was actually based on length in meters and this resulted in gross undervaluation of the loss. It is their specific grievance that the State Commission, without adjudicating the matter on merits, dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the Complainant executed a Discharge Voucher dated 29.01.2016 while receiving Rs.10,38,000. It was further argued that the Complainant thereafter issued legal notice dated 08.02.2016 disputing the settlement and subsequently filed the consumer complaint on 27.04.2016. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the Complainant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ARB.P. No. 459/2015 decided on 11.12.2015, pursuant to which the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDA) issued a circular dated 24.09.2015, clearly directing insurers not to use discharge vouchers as a bar/estoppel against insured persons seeking higher compensation before judicial fora. The said circular, inter alia, clarifies that execution of discharge vouchers does not foreclose the rights of the policyholder to seek enhanced compensation from courts or tribunals. The said circular states as under:

"INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY"

Ref. No: IRDA/NL/CIR/Misc/173/09/2015 Date: 24th September, 2015 To CEOs of all General Insurance Co., Circular Reg: Discharge Voucher in settlement of claim The Insurance Companies are using 'discharge voucher or "settlement intimation voucher" or in some other name, so that the claim is closed and does not remain outstanding in their books. However, of late, the Authority has been receiving complaints from aggrieved policyholders that the said instrument of discharge voucher is being used by the insurers in the judicial for a with the plea that the full and final discharge given by the policyholders extinguish their rights to contest the claim before the Court.

While the Authority notes that the insurers need to keep their books of accounts in order, it is also necessary to note that insurers shall not use the instrument of discharge voucher as a means of estoppels against the aggrieved policy holders when such policy holder approaches judicial fora.

Accordin