United India Insurance Co. Ltd.            ---   Petitioner
                                             Vs.
K. Gangadharan                                     ---   Respondent

BEFORE: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, 
               Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.L. haudhry, Member
               Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member. 

Per Justice D.P.Wadhwa (President)

     This petition under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the opposite party - insurer. 

     Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation for damage to his vehicle. It was covered by the insurance policy given by the insurer. The District Forum dismissed his complaint. However, on appeal his claim was allowed. Aggrieved, the insurer has come to this commission.

     Lorry of the complainant which was insured with the petitioner met with an accident and sustained extensive damage. It was taken to TVS workshop for repairs who billed him for Rs. 1,21,561/- towards repairs charges, Rs. 9,500/- value of spare parts and Rs. 1,000/- as towing charges. When the complainant made claim for this amount, the petitioner paid only Rs. 93,381/- declining to pay balance of Rs. 38,680/-. It was the contention of the petitioner that certain parts were subject to depreciation @ 50%, some items were excluded and compulsory excess of Rs. 1,500/- had to be deducted as per conditions of insurance policy. It was submitted by the petitioner that the complainant had accepted the amount of Rs. 93,381/- in full and final settlement of his claim and therefore, it was not open to him to allege any deficiency of service. Evidence was led both oral and documentary. District Forum came to the conclusion that in view of the receipt given by the complainant wherein he had accepted the amount of Rs. 93,381/- in full and final settlement of his account, he could not claim anything more. Complainant challenged this order of the District Forum before the State Commission. The main plank of the petitioner-insurer was that in view of the receipt having been given by the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim, the complaint could not lie. State Commission referred to decision of Supreme Court in United India Insurance vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 400 where it was held that finality could not just be attached to the receipt given in full discharge in the circumstances of a particular case. State Commission referred to the following observations in the aforesaid judgment:

     "Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief."

     In the light of the above decision, the State Commission examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that in the circumstances of this case, it could not be said that the receipt was given with free will of the complainant. State Commission allowed the appeal and directed that insurer shall pay Rs. 38,680/- being the balance amount of repair charges of the vehicle to the complainant. It has also directed that insurer will pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment. Three months time was granted to the petitioner to make the payment from the date of receipt of the order of the State Commission.

     In our view, State Commission has correctly arrived at the finding to hold that the discharge receipt was given by the complainant due to his financial hardship and not on account of his free will. It was noticed that complainant had specifically averred that his economic condition was such that he had to accept the offer made by the insurer and he had perforce to sign the receipt giving complete discharge to the petitioner. There is no denial to the averments made in the complaint by the insurer. State Commission arrived at a finding after examining the pleading and analysing the evidence on record and we do not find any error in the order of the State Commission for us to interfere in exercise of our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Act. Revision petition is dismissed.