IMPORTANT POINT
Mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered.

S.N. Aggarwal, President—Misc. Application for condonation of delay.This appeal was filed with delay of 44 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal. Reasons have been given in this application which caused the delay in filing the appeal. This application is supported by an affidavit. For the reasons stated in the application, we are satisfied that delay is not intentional and is liable to be condoned. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is allowed with all just exceptions and delay of 44 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Case:

The respondents, M/s Pee Ess Sales, Jalandhar Cantt. are a partnership concern. They are running the business of Merchant Exporters. They procure order from exporters stationed abroad. They prepare the requisite material and then export the same to the exporters. They have a godown in Bangalow No. 32, Rajinder Road, Jalandhar Cantt. They had taken the Insurance Cover from the appellants for an amount of Rs. 20 lacs against any loss on account of fire etc. in the godown and the insurance premium was paid. The insurance cover was valid for the period from 15.10.2003 to 14.10.2004.

2. It was further pleaded that unfortunately fire had broken out in the godown of respondents on the night intervening 30.11.2003 and 1.12.2003. At that time, the material like Nylon, Sandwich (Laminated) belts/belting adhesive etc. were stocked in the Godown which were meant for exporting to the exporters abroad. The fire tender had reached the spot within 30-45 minutes. The fire was extinguished. The respondents had suffered the loss. Information was given to the appellants. They had appointed the Surveyor who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 5,36,270/-. Accordingly, the respondents had lodged the claim with the appellants. Jitesh Sondhi was a partner of the respondent firm. He was also the Proprietor of M/s Sondhi Laminated Belting which had sold the goods to the respondents. The appellants had pressurised Jitesh Sondhi to reduce the amount of loss. He was pressured to reduce the amount to the tune of Rs. 4,62,643/- and assured him that the payment would be made immediately if the claim was reduced to that amount. After exercising pressure on him, the appellants got written consent letter dated 30.7.2004 accepting the claim to the tune of Rs. 4,62,643/-.

3. It was further pleaded that even after agreeing to reduce the claim to Rs. 4,62,643 against the genuine claim of Rs. 5,36,270/-, the matter was still postponed by the appellants on which the respondents issued a legal notice on 16.10.2004. Jitesh Sondhi was again called by the appellants and he was pressured to accept an amount of

Rs. 4,50,692/- and he was made to sign on the Discharge Voucher. It was pleaded that an amount of Rs. 85,578/- was illegally deducted by the appellants from the genuine claim of the respondents. Hence the respondents filed a complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, (in short the ‘District Forum’) for recovery of an amount of Rs. 85,578/- along with interest and costs.

4. The appellants filed the written reply. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that the respondents were not the consumers within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. It was also pleaded that the respondents have already accepted the assessment made by the Surveyor and in furtherance thereto they have accepted an amount of Rs. 4,49,631/- towards the full and final settlement of their claim. Now the respondents were debarred from filing of a complaint in view of the judgments reported as New India Assurance Company v. Ravi Oil Mill1; United India Insurance Company v. Rajesh Kumar2; judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported as Jiyaji Rao Cotton Mills v. New India Assurance Company3 and New India Assurance Co. v. Achhar Kumar Garg.4 It was denied if any pressure was exercised on Jitesh