JUDGEMENT Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral):- Admitted facts of this case are that a buffalo was purchased by the appellant with the financial assistance of UCO Bank, at its Badri Nagar Chock Opposite HPSEB, Paonta Sahib Branch at Sirmaur District. This was insured in the sum of Rs. 17,000/- This buffalo died on 20.5.2003. On this date again admittedly policy where under this animal stood insured was in force. 2. On receipt of information regarding death of the buffalo and after following codal formalities, a sum of Rs. 13,000/- has been paid by the respondent to the financier i.e. UCO Bank vide Annexure OPI. This receipt is also signed by the appellant. 3. In this background, Mr. Verma learned counsel for the appellant submitted that plight of his client can be better imagined than explained of the simple reason that animal had died and therefore, she was left with no source to repay the banker, from whom she had raised loan for purchase of the buffalo. Thus in the circumstances of this case according Verma, this appeal deserves to be allowed by holding the respondent liable for payment Rs.4,000/- besides interest and costs as well as compensation for harassment. All these plea have been controverted by Mr. Thakur on behalf of the respondent. Per him what is argued on behalf of the appellant before us was not the case pleaded, much less set out in the complaint filed before the District Forum below wherein impugned order was passed. He further urged that before asking for interference in this appeal with impugned order foundation had to be laid in the pleadings and then by some evidence to be proved on record. 4. Before dealing with the respective contention of the parties, we may point out that in case a litigant like appellant is able to demonstrate that either she was forced to execute the discharge voucher in full and final settlement of the claim or there were other compelling and unavoidable reasons due to which she had accepted the amount and signed the discharge voucher in the full and final settlement of claim, we would certainly examine the matter. We will go even a step further, that we are bound to examine whether the act of accepting the amount offered was a voluntary or involuntary act. 5. We will go even a step further, that we are bound to examine whether the act of accepting the amount offered was a voluntary or involuntary act. 5. When a reference is made to the complaint, there is not a murmur suggesting that either the appellant was forced to agree for the lump-sum payment of Rs. 13,000/- to the financier in. full and final settlement of her claim, or that there were other compelling reasons due to which she had to agree for the payment of Rs. 13,000/- to the financier and she also signed the receipt in a question i.e. Annexure OPI. That being the factual matrix of this case reliance placed by Mr. Verma on a decision National Commission in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Versus New Bharat Rice Mills, 11 (1997) (NC) is misconceived. We would have examined her case if she was not a signatory to the discharge voucher and was only signed by the bank. It is also not her case that either the banker or the appellant forced her to sign this voucher. 6. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith. Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.