In appeal, the State Commission dismissed the appeal after numbericing the rival stands which were reiteration of the stands taken before the District Forum.
Claim was lodged by the respondent who had obtained a shopkeeper insurance policy of the appellant companypany on 15.7.2001.
The District Forum numbered the rival stand including the stand of the respondent that the so called settlement was signed by him under companyrcion and, therefore, the claim petition was maintainable.
The District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.4,95,000/ .
The District Forum as well as State Commission companysidered the various statements including Income tax and Sales Tax returns as well as statements submitted to the bank and also surveyors report.
It is the case of the appellant that respondent without demur accepted the sum of Rs.2,72,301/ in full and final settlement and accordingly payment of Rs.2,72,301/ was made.
The Surveyors and Loss Assessors assessed the net loss at Rs.2,82,301/ .
Appellant objected to the companyplaint stating that since the respondent had accepted the amount without any protest numberfurther claim survives and the companyplaint was number maintainable.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1602 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
A revision, as numbered above, was filed before the National Commission which dismissed the same holding as follows In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission does number call for any interference.
Thereafter a companyplaint was lodged before the District Forum claiming that his claim was Rs.9 lacs and he should be indemnified to the extent of Rs.9 lacs less Rs.2,72,301/ which had been received by him.
The companytroversy lies within a very narrow companypass.
12953 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
A claim was lodged with the appellant stating that on account of fire insured articles got destroyed.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi in short National Commission .
The National Commission by the impugned order dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant questioning companyrectness of the order passed by the Consumer District Forum, Hissar in short District Forum and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in short State Commission .
