A.P. Sahi, President

1. The appellant is a Rice Mill at Bahraich in U.P. In order to secure its assets including its building and stocks, it acquired a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the respondent Insurance Company, the duration whereof was from 27.04.2009 to 26.04.2010. In the midnight of 25th-26th October, 2009, a fire occurred in the adjacent Goel Dal Mill of his brother in the same campus, as a result whereof the fire spread over and the complainant Rice Mill also suffered losses with damage to the stocks as well.

2. The claim was set up and accordingly M/s. V.P.Singhal & Co. were appointed as Surveyors. The status reports were submitted whereafter M/s. Alok Shankar & Co. were entrusted with this task of survey by the Insurance Company, who assessed the loss and damage and recommended the settlement of the claim for an assessed net loss of Rs. 19,35,600/-.

3. The complainant had claimed an amount of Rs. 64,58,680/-, but the first surveyor had assessed a loss of Rs. 56,05,395/-.

4. The complainant alleged that this reduction in the offer of settlement was coercive and on account of the bargaining power exercised by the Insurance Company through its Surveyor Mr. Alok Shankar, who according to the complainant was a tainted Surveyor. It was also urged that the claim came to be unilaterally settled and the complainant was compelled to sign a discharge voucher after several complaints had been made against the Surveyor and the Insurance Company including a complaint to the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority. According to the complainant, the consent for the payment of Rs. 19,35,600/- was obtained on 07.12.2010 and even then no payment was made till 27.04.2011. The complainant also alleged that a copy of the Surveyor report was being demanded time and again which was never supplied and therefore the complaint came to be filed in the year 2013.

5. Consequently after having received the amount of partial settlement offered by the Insurance Company, which was according to it the full and final settlement, the complaint was instituted that was contested by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company took a stand that the complainant had not been able to provide the correct information with regard to its stocks and the claim in respect of rice having been destroyed was not established for which the Surveyor relied on a forensic report from the National Testing House. According to the Surveyor, the said analysis indicated a very low presence of rice as located in the debris, the sample whereof was tested to establish the same. It is after taking notice of the same and upon enquiries having been made, the loss assessment was recommended and it is the said loss which came to be indemnified that was accepted as full and final payment by the complainant appellant.

6. The State Commission after having assessed the entire material on record and the legal position came to the conclusion that the complainant having accepted the settlement amount as a full and final settlement of the entire claim cannot be permitted to raise a subsequent claim, that too even belatedly and in the absence of any material to substantiate the same.

7. The complaint no. 42/2013 filed by the appellant was therefore dismissed on 21.10.2021 against which the present appeal has been filed. Notices were issued and the appeal has come up for hearing on 20.02.2025 when the following order was passed:

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sinha who has appeared online for the Insurance Company.

This is a case arising out of a partial settlement of the claim which the Insurance Company in its stand has stated that the claim had been settled on a full and final settlement basis on a letter issued voluntarily by the complainant - appellant on 7th December, 2010 against which the discharge voucher was also duly signed by him and a cheque dated 22.04.2011 was also encashed.

The complainant alleges that this partial settlement is not acceptable for several reasons including the reason that the discharge request had been made in the expectation that the payment will be made within 21 days.

There are other facts which have been narrated but the primary issue which needs to be considered is as to whether the said consent letter followed by the discharge can be treated to be either a result of fraud, coercion or any other such influence so as to treat the discharge voucher having been signed under compulsion.

Learned counsel may advance his submissions on the next date fixed as no further time left today.

List on 03.09.2025.

8. The matter could not be heard earlier and was adjourned on one count or the other whereafter we have heard the matter on 16.07.2026.

9. Mr. Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the Insurance Company deliberately in order to reduce the assessed amount by the first surveyor, appointed a second surveyor, who tailored the amount to suit the interest of the Insurance Company. This appointment of a second surveyor was absolutely unnecessary and was a malafide act on the part of the Insurance Company. It is then urged that the second surveyor Mr. Alok Shankar who had a tainted past, harassed the complainant appellant and called him thrice to Bombay for negotiating the insurance amount and settle the same which the complainant refused to accept. It is also urged by Mr. Dhruv Kumar that the Dal Mill of the brother of the complainant that had suffered losses in the same fire, and in the same incident, was also treated in a similar fashion and a reduced payment was made, but a dispute was raised through an arbitration and the claim in respect of the Dal Mill was accepted and settled proportionate to the loss of the unit. Mr. Dhruv Kumar submits that the appellant was in the same position, but the appellant could not initiate any litigation immediately after he was compelled to receive the partial amount offered by the Insurance Company that was done under a compulsion. He submits that had the appellant not signed the consent letter, he would not even have the benefit of the amount which has been given by the Insurance Company. It was therefore an amount received under protest and duress on account of the harassment of the surveyor as also the Insurance Company, who have unjustifiably deprived the complainant of his legitimate claim.

10. Mr. Dhruv Kumar then urged that the first surveyor Mr. V.P.Singhal had appropriately assessed the amount. The subsequent surveyor Mr. Alok Shankar while tendering his survey report has nowhere referred to the status report of Mr. Singhal nor has he in any way disagreed with the assessment made by Mr. Singhal. He therefore submits that there was no justification for a second surveyor and even if he had been appointed, reasons ought to have been given by the Insurance Company and the second surveyor ought to have given reasons as to why he disagreed with the assessment made by the first surveyor. He therefore submits that the action of the Insurance Company and the second surveyor is malafide and was a deliberate attempt to deprive the appellant complainant of his rightful claim.

11. He then submits that mere signing of a consent or a discharge voucher is of no consequence as it was done under compulsive circumstances and in view of the IRDA guidelines, such an act on the part of the Insurance Company to obtain a consent letter is contrary to the same as well as in teeth of the decisions to that effect rendered by this Commission as well as by the Apex Court.

12. He then submits that even on merits, the Surveyor had collected samples of the debris casually without following any norms for getting it tested. In this regard, Mr. Dhruv Kumar submits that the incident was of 25th / 26th October, 2009. The first surveyor came almost after 5 days on 31.10.2009 and made his assessment.

13. It is urged by Mr. Dhruv Kumar that since the debris was likely to spread diseases, the Municipal Corporation the health officials had asked the complainant to remove the debris and accordingly, the same was lifted and dumped in an open area. The said debris continued to remain there and had decayed and it is long thereafter that Mr. Alok Shankar was appointed, who after five months of the incident had collected the samples. Mr. Dhruv Kumar submits that this itself was an infructuous exercise of attempting to get the debris analysed after 5 months which had decayed in its content and was therefore not fit for the purpose of any analysis or calculation of the ratio of rice present in the sample.

14. Mr. Dhruv Kumar then contends that when the complainant asked the surveyor to send it directly to the testing lab and also give a copy of the collection receipt to the complainant, the surveyor refused to do so and privately carried the samples and got it tested on his own. He therefore doubts the correctness of method of sample collection as also the manner in which it was handled and sent for testing. He submits that it is totally against the method of sample collection as its packaging, dispatch and secured delivery were fully compromised. The surveyor himself carried it and did not give any proof of the collection of the said sample to the complainant. He therefore submits that such a sample was not only irrelevant, but was a totally invalid exercise and as such the said sample could not have been relied on by the surveyor to assess the loss. He therefore submits that this method of assessment is totally flawed and the survey report is uncreditworthy which deserves to be discarded.

15. He therefore submits that all these aspects have been overlooked by the State Commission and have not been appropriately assessed as such the findings and the conclusion drawn are unsustainable and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

16. He then submits that the calculation of the quantum is erroneous and therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed and the complaint deserves to be accepted.

17. Mr. Dhruv Kumar has cited the decision of the Apex court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 267, paragraph 49 to urge that the obtaining of undated consent letters or receipts in advance has been deprecated and therefore in the present case as well, the ratio thereof squarely applies and the impugned order is vitiated. He has then cited the decision in the case of M/s. Jagannatha Poultries vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., decided by this Commission and reported in 2012 NCJ 199 (NC) where it has been held that where it is permissible to appoint a second surveyor then it is the obligation of the Insurance Company to give reasons for the same and only through the prescribed methodology. In the instant case, the very appointment of the surveyor was malafide and wrong and the Insurance Company and the subsequent surveyor did not give any reason whatsoever for this necessity or for any error in the assessment made by the first surveyor Mr. Singhal.

18. He has then urged that mere signing off a consent letter does not in any way defeat or impede the right of the appellant to claim the amount. A protest was also raised through a legal notice dated 14.06.2011 to which a reply was given by the Insurance Co. on 07.07.2011.

19. He has also relied on the decision of this Commission in the case of M/s. Ainaj Industries vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., II (2025) CPJ 224 (NC) in support of his submissions. He has invited the attention of the Bench to paragraph 11 of the said decision to urge that in the present case also, the State Commission had erroneously relied on the consent letter to deny the claim.

20. Responding to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sinha for the Insurance Company has urged that this is not a case of the appointment of a second surveyor malafidely. The first surveyor Mr. Singhal had been appointed to conduct the survey but when the complainant had claimed a higher amount, then keeping in view the pecuniary limits, the surveyor who was available and capable to conduct an assessment of such a loss came to be subsequently appointed. Accordingly, the appointment of M/s. Alok Shankar & Co. as surveyor was an outcome of this exercise and not on account of any malafide reasons as alleged. The allegations that have been made have not been proved nor is there cogent evidence to establish any malafide in the appointment of Mr. Alok Shankar & Co. as the surveyor to conduct the final survey.

21. It is then urged that there cannot be a comparison of the losses of the Dal Mill of the elder brother of the complainant where during survey the contents of the debris established the claim of the brother who otherwise invoked an arbitration clause and the award was made. Mr. Sinha submits that there cannot be any comparison with the said case that turned on its own facts.

22. He then submits that the analysis made at the National Test House clearly establishes a very nominal presence of rice and therefore there is no error in the assessment made by the surveyor.

23. He then submits that it is not only the said analysis but also a discussion about the stocks and the assessment of loss by the surveyor who has discussed it in detail in the survey report. The contention is that this assessment on the basis of material on record including the status of the stocks and the dealing with the Bank that the surveyor has inferred that the claim was inflated and was not proportionate to the stocks present. He therefore submits that the findings of the surveyor had not been dislodged and consequently the arguments advanced are of no avail.

24. He then submits that there is no evidence whatsoever of any threat, coercion or otherwise. To the contrary, the surveyor has sent queries to the complainant and the complainant refused to reply to the same. The assessment was therefore done after a thorough investigation and after giving full opportunity to the complainant to tender his explanation and documents but the complainant failed to respond to the queries raised by the surveyor as such an adverse inference has been rightly drawn against the complainant while dismissing the complaint by the State Commission.

25. It is then urged that there is no evidence of any threat or coercion either at the time of the execution of the letter of consent or even thereafter. Not only this, the complainant received the full and final proceeds on settlement through a cheque on 27.04.2011, yet he did not raise any protest nor is there anything on record to indicate the same. A legal notice dated 14.06.2011 was replied to on 07.07.2011. It was an afterthought prepared after having settled the matter. It is after almost two years that straightaway the complaint had been filed without there being any explanation as to why no protest was raised for this long period. Thus, the acceptance and the consent given for full and final settlement was voluntary and free from any undue influence. The complainant failed to make out any case on the basis of any cogent evidence to establish the same and therefore the complaint has been rightly rejected.

26. Learned counsel submits that there is no rebuttal of the actual contents of the test report that has been relied on by the surveyor. Mr. Sinha has cited the decision in the case of M/s. Bimal Textiles vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., F.A. No. 77/2013, decided by this Commission on 17.10.2013 to substantiate his submissions urging that once a full and final settlement has been arrived at then in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the plea raised is untenable. He therefore prays that the appeal be dismissed as no ground has been made out either on any error of facts or law calling for any interference in the exercise of appellant jurisdiction by this Commission. The impugned order therefore deserves to be confirmed and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

27. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions, there seems to be hardly any dispute on the legal propositions that have been advanced but the question is whether the ratio of the decisions cited at the Bar would at all apply on the facts of the present case. Thus it is on the facts of the present case that the applicability of the legal position has to be analysed and for that a brief discussion is needed.

28. From the facts on record we find that Mr. V.P. Singhal was appointed as a surveyor who tendered his report and a 2nd status report as well. The 2nd status report furnished by him has been relied on heavily by the learned counsel for the complainant to urge that through this report an assessment of the loss liability was indicated to the tune of Rs. 40 to Rs. 45 lakhs. The claim form has been filed at page no. 66 of the appeal which does not bear any date, but at the same time what appears is that Mr. V.P. Singhal dispatched a letter to the Goel Dal Mill on 30.10.2009 asking for information on 15 counts including the claim form and also taking notice of the fact that on the notice of the Town Area, the removal of the debris was directed to be ensured to keep it under reasonable safety and security. Even though this letter is addressed to Goel Dal Mill, it appears that it was in response to the claim form of the rice mill as both the units of Rice and Dal Mills are in the same campus. The complainant informed the Chief Medical Officer about the removal of about 175 trolleys of debris as is contained in the letter dated 07.11.2009. It is during these visits that Mr. Singhal reported the status of the loss which was a tentative assessment without discussing any details. The 2nd status report dated 25.11.2009 on which reliance has been placed by the complainant is extracted hereinunder:

29. According to the complainant all the documents were sent to Mr. Singhal, but in spite of the repeated requests, no action was taken. However, the Insurance Company sought information from the fire department on 30.11.2009 for confirming the incident of fire as Mr. Singhal had tendered a preliminary report. The said letter reflects that Mr. Singhal had earlier tendered a telephonic message of the loss to be Rs. 70 to Rs. 80 lakhs, but subsequently, the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company informed that the loss amount was approximately Rs. 95 lakhs through some fax message. However, Mr. Singhal in his preliminary report is stated to have referred the amount of loss to Rs. 1.25 crores. It is on this that a clarification was sought from the Fire Department. The said letter is extracted hereinunder:

30. This was followed by another letter intimating the Fire Department requiring them to furnish the information regarding the statement of loss as the competent authority had appointed Mr. Alok Shankar as a surveyor for survey and assessment of the said loss as the same required confirmation of the loss exceeding Rs. 1 crore. The letter dated 28.01.2010 is extracted hereinunder:

31. The contention of Mr. Dhruv Kumar is based on a reading of these two letters that once Mr. Singhal who was also a category A surveyor had been appointed, there was no reason to change the said surveyor and appoint another category A surveyor namely Mr. Alok Shankar. There is no justification for the change that was brought about intentionally to dilute the claim of the complainant. It is further submitted that there were no reasons for change of such surveyor.

32. It is on this issue that Mr. Dhruv Kumar has relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Jgannatha Poultries (supra) to urge that while affecting such change reasons have to be given and such a change should be brought only through the IRDA. We have examined the contentions and we find that under the provisions of Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Insurance Company can appoint a surveyor and again obtain any other survey report in order to satisfy the correctness of the assessment. This has been dealt with in the same decision by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 507. In the instant case there appears to be a slight difference on facts, inasmuch as from the letters quoted above, Mr. Singhal in his 2nd status report seems to have referred the loss to be approximately Rs. 40 to Rs. 45 lakhs. Mr. Dhruv Kumar at the end of his arguments has relied on this 2nd status report to urge that even if the reduction had to be made, it ought to have been commensurate at least to the said 2nd status report. We are unable to accept this argument of Mr. Dhruv Kumar for the reason that the 2nd status report was a rough and tentative assessment and was not a loss assessment at all based on any permutations or calculations. What appears is that when the fire report was solicited by the Insurance Company through the letter dated 30.11.2009, reference was made to the assessments tendered telephonically by the Fire Department for Rs. 70 to Rs. 80 lakhs and then the intimation about the loss amount to be Rs. 95 lakhs by the Divisional Office followed by the preliminary report where the loss amount swelled to Rs. 1.25 crores. We are inclined to accept the argument of Mr. Sinha that it was on account of the enhancement of the pecuniary claim to above Rs. 1 crore that the competent authority proceeded to appoint Mr. Alok Shankar, a surveyor for survey and assessment of the above loss as the previous surveys by Mr. Singhal were preliminary surveys based on ad-hoc assessment and not based on a final survey. The Insurance Company was therefore well within its authority to appoint the surveyor to assess the claim due to the enhanced pecuniary limit of more than Rs. 1 crore. This is reflected from the letter dated 28.01.2010 sent to the Fire Department.

33. Mr. Dhruv Kumar urged that reasons ought to have been given and even otherwise the Surveyor Mr. Alok Shankar has not given any reason to differ from the views of the preliminary survey report of Mr. Singhal. During the course of the submissions, Mr. Dhruv Kumar has been unable to point out the specific differences between the preliminary survey report of Mr. Singhal of the assessment of loss and the final survey report of Mr. Alok Shankar. However, we find from the final survey report of Mr. Alok Shankar that he has referred to the observations of the preliminary surveyor in the final survey report dated 06.12.2010. He has also referred to the preliminary survey conducted on 29.10.2009 by Mr. Singhal. The observation of the preliminary surveyor Mr. Singhal has been extracted under the heading of inspection and verification of damages Clause - 7 which also contains the observations made by the final surveyor on inspection. Thus, the contention of Mr. Dhruv Kumar that the final surveyor has not given any reasons or has not taken into consideration any observations made by the preliminary surveyor Mr. Singhal is incorrect. This is therefore not a case of an appointment of a second surveyor, Mr. Singhal was the preliminary surveyor and the final survey was entrusted to Mr. Alok Shankar who did take into consideration the observations made by the preliminary surveyor. Not only this, while assessing the loss under Clause 12 and again under Clause 13, the Surveyor has referred to the report of the preliminary surveyor Mr. Singhal. We on the facts of this case, therefore do not find this to be a case of any deliberate appointment of the second surveyor for any malafide purpose and therefore the contention on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Dhruv Kumar to that effect cannot be accepted.

34. The other issue which requires assessment is about the argument raised regarding testing of the samples by the surveyor and the method of obtaining the report by him. Mr. Dhruv Kumar urged that no information about the same was provided and this was a clear breach on the part of the surveyor to have obtained a unilateral report without the involvement of the complainant. He further submits that there was no opportunity for the appellant to have contested the said report as the samples were collected on 15.03.2010 by Mr. Alok Shankar along with his associate Mr. Shah from the debris that had been removed long back and was in the shape of a complete waste material. The submission is that the very collection of the sample was an infructuous exercise. Not only this, the samples were sent by him without any intimation about the same in spite of demand to that effect which aspects were narrated in the complaint made to the Regulatory Authority on 08.10.2010.

35. What we find is that the surveyor did collect the samples and has based his report on the basis of the report received from the National Test House and the fact of collecting of samples was well known to the complainant. If the complainant had any grievance regarding the same or that the surveyor was trying to withhold the process of the testing unjustifiably, it was open to the complainant to have got the samples tested by himself in order to remove any doubt. The complainant had to establish that the debris could reflect the proportion of the stock of rice that had been claimed to have burned. We may point out that the surveyor has extended the benefits of the loss relating to paddy, the contents whereof were found in the testing report but has declined to accept the contention of the complainant regarding the stocks of rice as the contents of the sample test did not reflect on the same. As noted above, if the complainant had any doubts then he could have himself adduced evidence or any other testing report, but there is nothing to rebut the same. The process therefore adopted by the surveyor to collect the sample and then base his recommendations on the same cannot be said to be doubtful in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

36. The surveyor however has taken care not to rest his recommendations only on the testing report. We find from the survey report that he has extensively examined all documents as well as Bank accounts in order to assess the possible loss of stocks and the details are available in the said report dated 06.12.2010. We therefore find that the conclusions drawn by the surveyor on the quantum of loss is based on a combined assessment of the test report as also a detailed examination of the documents and the account statement of the complainant.

37. We further find another fact on this issue to be mentioned namely that during this process, the surveyor had demanded documents from the complainant. The complainant in his letter dated 22.11.2010 addressed to the Insurance Company has clearly stated that the complainant has decided not to reply to the surveyor's letter dated 10.11.2010. The same is extracted hereinunder:

38. The complainant seems to have done this on account of his complaint having been made to the IRDA on 08.10.2010 which has also been made the basis for his contention that the complainant was being put under duress by the surveyor to accept the suggestions. We do not find any cogent reasons for the complainant to have refused to give a reply and in such circumstances, the complainant having failed on his part, cannot put the blame on the Insurance Company for a non-consideration of relevant material. Through the letter dated 10.11.2010, it appears that several queries were raised which is reflected in the reply quoted above. If the complainant himself has voluntarily chosen not to given a reply, the same cannot be a ground to find fault with the surveyor or with the Insurance Company. It is thus clear that on the issue relating to the test carried out and the assessment made by the surveyor was sought to be dealt with by the surveyor through his queries, but it is the complainant who has failed to respond to the same. Mr. Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant has been unable to give any satisfactory reply in that regard and he insisted that if the very test report was based on an erroneous and unaccepted method of collection of samples, then the said test report is not credit worthy. As already indicated above, it was open to the complainant to contest the same, but merely casting a doubt in respect of the method of collection of sample does not suffice. The surveyor could have possibly undertaken this exercise in order to assess the loss and therefore no fault can be found on that count. The appellant took no steps to prove the content of rice in the debris through any test which he ought to have done being the complainant.

39. We now come to the most important issue which has been made the basis for dismissing the complaint by the State Commission namely the signing of the consent letter by the complainant for a full and final settlement. In order to appreciate the same, we may reproduce the letter of consent tendered by the complainant on 07.12.2010. This letter was sent almost after two months of the complaint having been made to the IRDA authority in October, 2010. This letter of consent nowhere indicate any complaint of duress or undue influence being exercised by the surveyor or even by the Insurance Company. The translated copy of the said letter is extracted hereinunder:

40. A perusal of the same would indicate that the same does not admit of any ambiguity as being voluntary and unconditional. The discharge voucher which was signed by the Allahabad Bank with whom the goods were hypothecated is extracted hereinunder:

41. It may be mentioned that since there was a Bank clause in the hypothecation documents, the Insurance amount had to be transferred according to the complainant also to the Bank. These consent and discharge documents nowhere indicate any reference to any protest or complaint regarding any duress or otherwise.

42. It is correct that the actual release of the amount took place through a cheque dated 27.04.2011 which is extracted hereinunder:

43. It is also correct that there is no explanation as to why the Insurance Company took almost four months to release the amount when the consent and the discharge vouchers had already been received by them. The contention of Mr. Dhruv Kumar is that this practice of getting consent letters in advance and discharge slips signed by the Insurance Company had been deprecated long back by the Apex Court in the case of Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd. (supra) cited by him. Paragraph 49 of the said decision is extracted hereinunder:

49. Obtaining of undated receipts-in-advance in regard to regular/routine payments by government departments and corporate sector is an accepted practice which has come to stay due to administrative exigencies and accounting necessities. The reason for insisting upon undated voucher/receipt is that as on the date of execution of such voucher/receipt, payment is not made. The payment is made only on a future date long after obtaining the receipt. If the date of execution of the receipt is mentioned in the receipt and the payment is released long thereafter, the receipt acknowledging the amount as having been received on a much earlier date will be absurd and meaningless. Therefore, undated receipts are taken so that it can be used in respect of subsequent payments by incorporating the appropriate date. But many a time, matters are dealt with so casually that the date is not filled even when payment is made. Be that as it may. But what is of some concern is the routine insistence by some government departments, statutory corporations and government companies for issue of undated "no-dues certificates" or "full and final settlements vouchers" acknowledging receipt of a sum which is smaller than the claim in full and final settlement of all claims, as a condition precedent for releasing even the admitted dues. Such a procedure requiring the claimant to issue an undated receipt (acknowledging receipt of a sum smaller than his claim) in full and final settlement, as a condition for releasing an admitted lesser amount, is unfair, irregular and illegal and requires to be deprecated.

44. Mr. Dhruv Kumar submits that the consent letter even though is dated, yet the discharge voucher obtained from the Bank is undated, and such practice having been deprecated, it is evident that the Insurance Company continued with such practices as a result whereof the IRDA had to issue several circulars. It is undoubtedly clear that the Regulatory Authority has taken measures to instruct the Insurance Companies deprecating the practice of taking any advance consents or signing of discharge slips, but at the same time, in the instant case it is evident that the complainant had raised his complaint before the IRDA on 08.10.2010. The said letter is already on record as Annexure 12. It is correct that the said letter did raise concerns about the manner in which Mr. Alok Shankar was negotiating the assessment as alleged by the complainant, but it is after having made this complaint that the consent letter came to be signed after almost two months on 07.12.2010. There is no document other than the previous letter of 08.10.2010 regarding any complaint about the acts and omissions of the surveyor prior to receiving the payment. There is no complaint at least on record to indicate the exercise of duress and undue influence being alleged by the complainant before 27.04.2011 or immediately thereafter. A legal notice was framed on 14.06.2011 almost after 2 months repeating the same concerns as in the letter dated 08.10.2010. There is nothing in between to that effect. To the contrary the consent letter was signed on 07.12.2010 and payment received on 27.04.2011 without any protest. The legal notice dated 14.06.2011 is therefore an afterthought. The contents of it were rebutted through the reply on 28 07.07.2011 by the Insurance Co. It may be true that the complainant was under a financial obligation to discharge the liabilities of the Bank where the goods were hypothecated, but that by itself cannot be a ground to impute harassment on the part of the surveyor or the Insurance Company. We have noted above that the surveyor had demanded information and had raised several queries which the complainant himself refused to answer as per his reply extracted hereinabove. In such circumstances, there is no occasion for us to presume any duress or undue influence being exercised by the surveyor or by the Insurance Company.

45. Mr. Dhruv Kumar submits that the same attitude had been adopted by the Insurance Company towards the elder brother of the complainant in respect of the Dal Mill who fought it through an arbitration and succeeded in getting his claimed amount. If that were so, nothing prevented the complainant also to choose the said path and seek his remedy. Mr. Dhruv Kumar urges that it was because of financial constraints that the complainant could not invoke the arbitration proceedings before the High Court. We are unable to accept this, inasmuch as the appointment of the Arbitrator is an exercise which is taken up routinely by High Courts and that is not such a process where any financial constraints as alleged could be an impediment. In fact the complainant has engaged lawyers and has filed the complaint before the State Commission which must not have been done without entailing any expenses including the filing of the appeal before us. The argument of Mr. Dhruv Kumar is unacceptable and the illustration of the claim of the bother cannot be a ground to invoke any equality in the nature of the claim.

46. We are therefore of the opinion that there was no material on record to indicate any duress. After receiving the cheque on 27.04.2011, the legal notice was sent as an afterthought on 14.06.2011 that was promptly rebutted by the Insurance Co. vide response dated 07.07.2011. It is after two years that the complaint was filed in 2013. Mr. Dhruv Kumar urged that the complainant had kept on asking for a copy of the survey report which was not supplied and therefore the complainant was in the process of his efforts to raise this issue.

47. We are unable to accept this contention, inasmuch as none of the letters demanding a copy of the survey report even remotely indicate any complaint or protest about any duress or undue influence. Coercion and duress cannot be established unless there is even a semblance of evidence to that effect. We are unable to appreciate the argument of Mr. Dhruv Kumar because of the fact that the complainant could have raised a protest even upon receiving the cheque promptly and immediately thereafter. There is no cogent evidence to that effect as discussed above and on top of it, the complaint came to be filed almost two years thereafter in the year 2013. It is therefore obvious that the complaint was generated with all allegations after this lapse of almost more than 2 ½ years of having accepted the amount as full and final settlement with a consent letter dated 07.12.2010. None of the decisions cited by Mr. Dhruv Kumar therefore come to the aid of the complainant on the present facts and to the contrary the contentions raised by Mr. Sinha are supported by decisions cited by him. The absence of any evidence of duress, coercion or undue influence being exercised has nowhere been raised established at any point of time prior to the acceptance of final settlement. The legal notice was a belated afterthought that remained unsubstantiated. The complaint having been filed in 2013, it was obviously a completely stale claim that was set up long after the matter had been settled. We are therefore of the firm view that the State Commission did not commit any error in arriving at the conclusion that the claim had been finally settled and accordingly there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. The appeal fails and is therefore dismissed.