Discharge voucher does not foreclose the rights of the policyholder to seek higher compensation before judicial foras.

NCDRC Upholds State Commission's Decision in Pioma Industries Insurance Claim Dispute National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismisses Pioma Industries' appeal for additional insurance compensation, upholds surveyor's report and State Commission's ruling.

In a recent decision dated September 8, 2025, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed an appeal by M/s Pioma Industries, a manufacturer and trader of Rasna soft drink products, seeking additional insurance compensation from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The case revolved around a claim for damages caused by floods in Maharashtra in July 2005, which allegedly affected stocks stored at a rented facility in Bhiwandi.

Pioma Industries, which had a Floater Declaration Policy covering fire and standard perils, claimed a total loss of Rs. 1,48,94,970.10 due to damage to its stock. The insurance company settled the claim for Rs. 45,83,215 based on the surveyor's assessment, which led Pioma to protest and pursue further compensation, arguing that the discharge voucher signed did not preclude them from claiming additional amounts.

The State Commission had previously partly allowed Pioma's complaint, awarding an additional Rs. 27,29,598.12 with interest, but rejected the claim for further losses amounting to Rs. 60,37,098.28, citing insufficient evidence of stock presence at the insured godown during the incident. Pioma's subsequent appeal to the NCDRC focused on this rejected claim.

The NCDRC, presided over by Mr. Justice A.P. Sahi and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, upheld the State Commission's decision, emphasizing the importance of the surveyor's report, which found no convincing evidence of the claimed stock being stored at the insured location during the floods. The judgment reinforced that floater policies require proof of stock presence at the claimed site during the incident, and discharge vouchers do not serve as an estoppel against seeking additional claims, provided there is evidence of coercion or duress, which was not established in this case.

The NCDRC's ruling reflects the need for substantial proof in insurance claims and highlights the critical role of surveyor assessments in dispute resolutions.

Bottom Line:

Discharge voucher does not foreclose the rights of the policyholder to seek higher compensation before judicial or other established fora. Floater policies cover goods in specified locations affected by peril but do not automatically cover unaffected locations.

Statutory provision(s): Consumer Protection Act, Insurance Laws

M/s Pioma Industries v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (NCDRC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2775866