PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/OP against the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the District Commission”), in Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/ 361 /202 3, vide which the complaint was partially allowed with direction to the Opposite Party to pay the remaining amount of 1,82,40,000/- to the Complainant No.2 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of previous payment i.e. 19.07.2023 till the date of its actual realization.

2. For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the learned District Commission.

COMPLAINANT’S CASE:

3. Briefly stated, the complainant, CHERESO Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, filed the complaint alleging wrongful repudiation/ under-settlement of its insurance claim arising from a fire incident at its insured premises. It was pleaded that the complainant had been holding the insurance policy since 2010, regularly paying premiums without having raised any previous claim. On 13.01.2023, a fire broke out at the insured premises, causing substantial loss, whereupon immediate intimation was given to the insurer and the concerned authorities. A Surveyor was appointed the same day and inspected the site. As the complainant’s principal representative had sustained burn injuries and was hospitalized, the Surveyor interacted with other staff members. Thereafter, on 19.01.2023, the complainant submitted detailed particulars of the loss along with supporting documents, including stock details. Alleging that despite valid policy coverage and full compliance with policy conditions, the insurer failed to indemnify the actual loss suffered, thereby causing financial loss, harassment and mental agony, the complainant sought, the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Opposite Party may kindly be directed to pay a sum of 2 crore 54 lakhs being the insured declared value i.e. loss suffered along with 18% interest from the date of loss i.e. 13.01.2023 till the realization as the insured has suffered a great loss on account of fire which took place on 13.01.2023.

To pay the compensation to the tune of 25 lakhs for harassment and mental agony caused by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant in this traumatic time, for unfair trade practice and take consumer action.

To pay 5 lakhs on account of litigation expenses.”

DEFENCE OF OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. The OP contested the complaint and raised a preliminary objection that the claim had already been settled in full and final satisfaction. It was pleaded that the claim was approved on 23.05.2023, the complainant executed a discharge voucher on 18.07.2023, and payment was released on 19.07.2023. Though the complainant endorsed the voucher with the words “under protest”, the OP contended that the settlement remained binding and barred any further claim. Reliance was placed on Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2024) CPJ 422 (NC). The OP denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and relied upon Khatema Fibres Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2021) CPJ 1 (SC), contending that the claim had been settled on the basis of a survey report dated 15.03.2023 and an investigator’s report dated 17.04.2023. The loss was assessed at 32,03,004/-, which amount was accepted by the complainant despite having earlier claimed 2,28,74,085/-. The complainant, having accepted the payment and executed the discharge voucher, was estopped from seeking any further amount.

The OP further contended that the dispute involved complex questions of fact and law requiring elaborate evidence and, therefore, fell outside the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission. As the settlement was made strictly in accordance with the policy terms and conditions, the OP prayed f