ORDER Dr. P. D. Shenoy, Member—Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner who was the complainant before the District Forum has filed this revision petition. He had taken an insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1,65,000 in respect of 11 Rolls of Woollen Carpets and the goods were transported through Varansai Bombay Road Lines on 2.2.1993. On 8.2.1993, the petitioner came to know from the said transport company, that the goods and the truck have been burnt into ashes near Akola. Accordingly, on the same day he informed the Insurance Company, which appointed M/s Kapadia Brothers as surveyor. M/s Kapadia Brothers conducted the survey on the spot on 16.2.1993, and ultimately after a lapse of one year and eight months, the Insurance Company offered to pay Rs. 1,07,897 and asked the insured to give in writing that the said amount was in full and final settlement and it would be only then the payment of the said amount would be made. Accordingly, the petitioner alleged that he signed the receipt under duress. 2. On 7.11.1994, the petitioner addressed a letter stating that he has received less amount under protest instead of the claimed amount of Rs.1,65,000 and therefore, the balance amount may be paid to him as early as possible. This letter was duly received by the Insurance Company. As the balance amount was not paid he filed a complaint before the District Forum on 21.11.1994. After prolonged hearing for nearly three years on 6.7.1997 the District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay the petitioner Rs. 57,103 along with interest @ 18% per annum from 31.10.1994 to the actual date of payment along with the same interest on the total amount i.e. Rs.1,65,000 from 2.8.1993 to 24.10.1994. In addition, the District Forum directed that Rs.1,500 be reimbursed to the petitioner as surveyor’s fee, Rs.779 towards transportation charges, Rs.7,000 towards conveyance charges and travelling expenses and Rs. 8,000 on account of physical, financial, mental agony and compensation. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that once the complainant had given a voucher towards full and final settlement he cannot claim additional amount. The State Commission also reduced the interest payable from 18% to 9% on the amount paid from 1.4.1993 till the date of payment i.e. 31.10.1994. 4. The State Commission held that once the complainant had given a voucher towards full and final settlement he cannot claim additional amount. The State Commission also reduced the interest payable from 18% to 9% on the amount paid from 1.4.1993 till the date of payment i.e. 31.10.1994. 4. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the complainant has filed this revision petition before us. The main issue to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the amount of loss assessed by the surveyor or the amount actually paid by the Insurance Company towards full and final settlement. In this connection, the complainant has informed the Insurance Company about the accident on 8.2.1993 and the surveyor conducted the survey and estimated the damage to the tune of Rs.1,65,000 and submitted the report on 16.2.1993 to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company slept over the matter for 20 long months and on 24.10.1994 they offered to pay Rs.1,07,897 towards full and final settlement. It is a well-known fact that the Insurance Company will not pay the amount to the insured unless he gives a discharge voucher mentioning full and final settlement. If he writes “under protest” the Insurance Company does not pay the amount. So the complainant has not slept over the matter but raised this objection soon thereafter. When the surveyor has himself has assessed the loss at Rs.1,65,000 we are at loss to understand why the Insurance Company further reduced the amount. Further, the report of the surveyor is very clear which says that the insured’s 11 Rolls of Wollen Carpets were very badly burnt due to fire. A few severely burnt pieces of woollen carpets were the only salvage. There was no value of salvage for those few burnt piece. The loss was therefore treated as total. After verification of invoice, packing list, insurance policy, dispatch documents etc., the amount of loss was arrived as under: Rs.1,65,000 Less value of salvage NIL Amount of Loss Rs.1,65,000” 5. No valid reasons are forthcoming for reducing this assessment. It is a well-settled law that surveyor’s report is to be given credence unless there is evidence against the assessment made by the surveyor. Secondly, the Insurance Company does not offer any amount for 1½ years, after the surveyor has submitted his report. Naturally the insured will be under tension and under financial loss. It is a well-settled law that surveyor’s report is to be given credence unless there is evidence against the assessment made by the surveyor. Secondly, the Insurance Company does not offer any amount for 1½ years, after the surveyor has submitted his report. Naturally the insured will be under tension and under financial loss. Hence, instead of incurring financial loss every month, he would like to grab whatever is given to him, hoping to collect the balance amount on subsequent date. The Insurance Company and the insured are not having equal financial clout as the insured is a weaker party who can be arm twisted to accept the amount as full and final settlement. The insured has clearly mentioned in his protest letter dated 7.11.2004 as follows: “We request you that please give us the balance amount as earliest possible. If you do not give us the balance amount within a week we shall go to the Court of Law due to we have said big interest expenses and business loss of harassment due to you.” 6. Therefore, the Insurance Company has first committed deficiency of service by delaying the part payment for 20 months after the report of the surveyor. Secondly, they committed another deficiency of service by not accepting the surveyor’s report and reducing the amount payable without giving any justifiable reasons. The Insurance Company has not appointed a second surveyor to contradict the report of the first surveyor. 7. In a catena of judgments by the National Commission and the Apex Court, it has been held that the surveyors report is a valuable document and it should have been given due credence unless there are adequate reasons to discard the same. In this connection we would like to cite an extract of the latest judgment of the National Commission which was pronounced on United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. A Sreedhar Reddy1, wherein it has been observed as under: “As per settled law the report of the surveyor is an important document, which cannot be brushed aside and in this case, nothing has been shown to us to take the figure of loss other than the one arrive at by the surveyor.” 8. On the question of inordinate delay in settling the claim the Hon’ble Commission in Col. On the question of inordinate delay in settling the claim the Hon’ble Commission in Col. Shim Singh v. Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.2 has held as under: “We have reasons to suspect that the payment of insured amounts, which are not in dispute, are often delayed with a view to coerce the assured into giving a receipt in full and final discharge of the claim of the insured”. 9. In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr. and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Trunb Kanti Sengupta and Anr.3 the Apex Court discussed at length the concept of coercive bargaining and held that: “where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his consent to a contract or to sign on dotted line in a prescribed or other form or two accept a set of rules as part of contract, however, unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract may be the Courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract or an unfair or unreasonable clause in a contract entered into between the parties who are not equal in bargaining power. The Court visualized different situations such as where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties or the inequality may be the result of circumstances whether of the creation of the parties or not. Or a situation in which the weaker party is in position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them.” 10. The ratio of the above judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand. 11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 57,103 along with 9% interest per annum from two months from the date of the surveyor’s report till the date of payment. The Insurance Company shall also pay Rs. 10,000 as cost. Revision petition partly allowed. ********