Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The surveyor had visited the site on 12.08.2005 after about a week of incident of theft. As per documents Annexure Nos. OP-3 to OP-11, letters dated 29.08.2005, 17.09.2005, 01.10.2005, 24.10.2205, 15.11.2005, 06.02.2006, 17.02.2006 & 10.07.2006 were sent to the respondent/complainant so as to satisfy some queries and to procure additional documents in order to elicit more information to expedite assessment of loss and on the other hand the respondent/complainant // 8 // had sent replies to the surveyor vide documents Annexure No. A-5 to A-7 on 3.07.2006, 24.07.2006 & 03.08.2006.The respondent/complainant signed the printed Settlement intimation Voucher accepting the claim amount Rs.8,55,789/- in full satisfaction with seal and signature and accepted Cheque No.855790 on 28.10.2006 and 6 months thereafter wrote a letter dated 25.04.2007 vide document Annexure No.A-8 to the appellant insurance company disputing the claim amount thereby seeking information under R.T.I. Act to know as to why lesser amount was paid than the claimed amount. The respondent/complainant was provided relevant information with documents including a copy of surveyor‟s report on 04.06.2008 vide document Annexure No.A-15. Respondent/complainant could have disputed the claim amount before signing the discharge voucher or if it was really aggrieved it could have lodged protest soon after receiving claim cheque but it raised dispute after a lapse of about 6 months which is indicative of its second thought. Learned counsel for the appellant cited case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (1) CPR 80 (SC), wherein the respondent had given a clean discharge to the appellant without any qualification signifying receipt of the amount in full and final settlement of the claim and subsequently, after a lapse of two months sent a letter disputing the claim payment which was settled without interest. Honb‟le Apex court held that in the said letter there was no complaint that discharge voucher was obtained // 9 // from the complainant/ respondent fraudulently or by exercise of undue influence or by representation or coercive bargaining so the appellant was not held deficient of alleged belated payment. In the facts of the instant case, after receiving the surveyor‟s report the respondent/complainant has not pointed out any discrepancy therein and filed complaint before Consumer Fora alleging deficiency in service on account of lesser payment of compensation by the respondent company so on same principle as laid down by Hon‟ble Apex court in the aforesaid case the respondent/complainant could not raise dispute over the claim amount which was received in full satisfaction.