The second application for execution was not maintainable once the complainant had received a cheque in full and final settlement of his claim.

ORDER

Mr. Justice Gurdeo Singh, President - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the application filed by him, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), was dismissed.

2. Detailed discussion is required for the disposal of this appeal, keeping in view the facts involved. The complainant, Narpinder Singh, filed complaint (CC No.347 of 2010) before the District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties, alleging therein that he had got his car bearing No. PB-17B-1212 insured with the opposite parties for IDV of Rs. 15,22,565/- for the period 23.12.2009 to 22.12.2010. The same met with an accident on 23.02.2010 and he lodged the claim with the opposite parties, who appointed Surveyor and Loss Assessor for assessing the loss to the vehicle. In the complaint, he prayed for the issuance of directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,22,565/- for the repairs of the vehicle and Rs. 15,000/-, as damages for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience. The complaint was allowed, vide order dated 03.02.2011, and the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs. 15,01,091/-, as assessed by the surveyor, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the realisation of that amount and to pay Rs. 5,000/-, as damages for mental agony, inconvenience and harassment suffered by him. That order was not complied with by the opposite parties and the complainant filed Execution Application (EA No.20 of 2011), under Section 25 of the Act, for the enforcement of that order. Notice of the application was given to the opposite parties; who put in their appearance before the District Forum. On 15.04.2011, the following statement was made by Major Som Nath, Counsel for the opposite parties:

"Written statement has been received from the side of the complainant, in which he had stated that he has no objection in case the cheque of the balance amount is issued in the name of the Financier-Bank. The vehicle shall be lifted within 2/3 days and the amount due to the Bank shall be paid by means of cheque and after 10/15 days of the receipt of NOC from the Bank, the cheque of the complainant shall be delivered to him, as such, period of 20 days be allowed for that purpose."

In view of the statement, so made by the opposite parties, the following statement was made by the complainant:

"I after obtaining the NOC from the Bank by 19.04.2011 shall deliver the keys of the vehicle to the counsel for the opposite parties."

In view of those statements, the following order was recorded by the District Forum:

"Applicant made a statement that he will hand over the keys of the vehicle and also the NOC issued by the Bank in the office of the Company on 19.04.2011. Major Som Nath, counsel for the respondents, made a statement that if the applicant will hand over the above said certificate and keys, then the Company will make the payment to him within 10- 15 days. Hence, this case is adjourned to 28.04.2011 for further proceedings. Both the parties have been directed to abide by the statements made by them/their counsels." When the Execution Application was taken up on 28.04.2011, the same was adjourned to 03.05.2011 for further proceedings, on the request of the counsel for the opposite parties. On that day, following statement was made by the complainant:

"I have received a cheque No.215878 dated 25.04.2011 amounting to Rs. 11,93,436/-, as full and final payment of my claim. Now I am satisfied and I withdraw the present application."

In view of that statement, the application was dismissed, as fully satisfied.

The complainant moved another application (EA No.24 of 2014) for directing the opposite parties to comply with the order dated 03.02.2011. He contended therein that the opposite parties had paid only Rs. 11,93,