The significance of discharge vouchers and full and final settlements in consumer protection cases, and the importance of timely protest and non-acceptance of settlement offers.

ORDER

V.B. Gupta, (P.M) - Present appeal has been filed by Appellant/Complainant against impugned order dated 20.12.2013, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, 'State Commission').

2. Brief facts are that, appellant had "Export Marine Insurance Policies" for Rs.70cr and Rs. 20cr, for the period 01.07.2004 to 30.6.2005 and for Rs.70cr and Rs.40cr for the period 01.07.2005 to 30.06.2005. Appellant issued six different invoices to Hyman Brickle & Sun Ins., USA and sold total 25,035.90 yards clothes having insured value of Rs.64,91,282/- and invoice value Rs.58,21,230/-(US Dollar 1,34,117). The said goods were dispatched to R. Nicolas Distributors, I.N.C. Canada. However, the said goods were damaged/affected/effected on the way.

3. Respondents/Opposite Parties appointed surveyor for assessment of the loss. Preliminary surveyor assessed the loss of appellant company at Rs.61,57,791/- (1,40,781.69 U.S. Dollars) and final survey accepted the claim for Rs.51,24,874.50P (US$ 1,17,166.77). Respondent No.1 assessed the claim of Rs.47,62,567/- having made deductions out of the amount assessed by the final surveyor. However, respondents made the payment of Rs.24,18,550/- only to the appellant, which amounts to serious deficiency in services on the part of the respondents. Hence, respondents be ordered to pay the remaining amount of Rs.41,34,377.34P, having deducted Rs.24,18,550/- already paid, out of the actual loss suffered by the appellant i.e. Rs.65,52,927.34P, along with interest @ 18%.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply stated, that sum of Rs.24,18,550/- has already been paid to the appellant towards full and final settlement. The surveyor had suggested re-processing of damaged goods, but whole goods were reprocessed without informing the surveyor. Therefore, appellant is not entitled to get any other amount.

5. The State Commission, while deciding the consumer complaint in the impugned order observed;

"Opposite Party has satiated insured amount under full and final settlement. Complainant wants to get amount in addition to this. Therefore, the said case does not pertain with the jurisdiction of the Commission. Therefore, complainant should have filed suit in the court enjoying competent jurisdiction. In addition to this, several complicated issues involved in the complaint that out of the goods exported/despatched by complainant i.e. 25,035.90 yards, how much cloth was sold in proper condition, how much goods/cloth was returned, what is the value of returned goods, what is the value of goods sold, which can be found out through detailed evidence only. Therefore, in such situation too, it is justifiable to send the complaint in the court enjoying competent jurisdiction allowing exemption of limitation.

Order

Therefore, complaint of complainant is disposed of accordingly that complainant would before to file his complaint in the court enjoying competent jurisdiction. Complaint is disposed of accordingly."

6. Hence, this appeal.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and gone through the record.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel, that State Commission did not take into consideration the survey reports which are determining factor. Moreover, claim of appellant was liable to be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, State Commission had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute and no further evidence was required for the same.

9. It is further submitted, that State Commission ought to have taken into consideration that appellant could not be held liable due to the failure of the surveyor, appointed by the respondents themselves, to inspect the complete fabric.

10. Lastly, learned counsel submits that payment was received by the appellant under protest. However, thereafter vide letters dated 16.11.2006 and 20.11.2006, appellant requested respondents to look into the matter again. But no reply was received from them. Thus, protest was made b