PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 541/2007 M/s. Balaji Medicos Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was doing business of sale of drugs and pharmaceuticals as a wholesaler and retailer at shop Nos. 2 & 3, Iron Market, Sector 29, Chandigarh and was also running retail business at Sector 32, Chandigarh under the name and style of M/s. Balaji Medicos. Complainant took insurance policy for the goods lying at its godown in Sector 29 for Rs.10 lakhs from OP No. 1/petitioner which was valid from 18.10.2003 to 17.10.2004. On account of heavy rains on the intervening night of 2/3-8-2004, drugs and medicines stored in the godown were damaged, as water had entered into godown. Complainant informed to the OP and submitted claim of Rs.10,08,126.20. OP appointed assessor to assess the loss and at the instance of surveyor, complainant revised claim and lodged claim of Rs.9,08,846/-. OP sent cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- on 26.10.2004 towards full and final settlement, which was received by the complainant under protest. After legal notice, OP did not release payment of Rs.3,08,313/- and in such circumstances, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that stocks of Sector 29 as well as Sector 32 were damaged. Due to rains, surveyor assessed loss of Rs.6,00,533/- for the stocks lying in Sector 32 and this amount was paid to the complainant as full and final settlement and prayed dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by the impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as the amount was accepted by the complainant in full and final satisfaction of the claim, learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint. It was further submitted that stocks of godown of Sector 29 were only insured and as per survey report, payment of assessed loss had been made; even then learned State Commission had committed error in allowing appeal for rest of the amount; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned State Commission after elaborate discussion has rightly allowed complaint and order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. First question to be decided by this Commission is; whether complainant accepted cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- towards full and final settlement of the claim, or not. Complainant in para 10 of the complaint has clearly stated that cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- has been received by the complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim on 26.10.04. It appears that later on by hand nd was received under protesthas been inserted. Affidavit in support of this complaint has also been filed by the complainant and para 10 of the affidavit does not depict receipt of payment under protest. In such circumstances, it can very well be held that cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- was received by complainant towards full and final settlement to the claim. OP/petitioner has clearly mentioned in paragraph 10 of its reply before District Forum that complainant has received aforesaid amount as full and final settlement of the claim. Thus, it becomes clear that complainant after receiving Rs.6,00,533/- on 26.10.2004 towards full and final settlement of the claim issued legal notice to the OP for release of rest of the amount and filed Complainant No.274/05. Ld. Counsel for the respondent could not apprise the date, when legal notice was given for release of rest of amount and on which date complaint was filed. Perusal of complaint case number reveals that complaint might have been filed in mid of year 2005, whereas complainant received cheque of Rs.6,00,533/- on 26.10.04. Filing complaint after many months and that too without pleading, coercion, fraud, undue influence, etc., it cannot be believed that amount was received under protest. Once the amount is received towards full and final settlement of the claim, complaint for rest of the amount is not maintainable, as held by Honle Apex Court in JT 1999 (6) SC 23 United India Insurance V. Ajmer Singh Cotton & Gen. Mills & Ors. etc. and (2000) SCC 334 New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Venkata Padmavathi R&B Rice Mill. Ld. State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint, though, complainant received amount towards full and final satisfaction of the claim. 6. As far value of stocks lying in the godown in Sector 29 are concerned, surveyor has clearly mentioned in its survey report that goods worth Rs.7,39,230/- was lying in Sector 29 and goods worth Rs.3,14,270/- was lying in shop situated in Sector 32. Cross-examination of Mr. Shiv Kumar, Chartered Accountant of complainant clearly reveals that Annexure P-8 was the consolidated statement of Sector 32 and Sector 29, which was signed by him as well as by proprietor of complainant firm. Closing stock of both the places was of Rs.10,53,500/-. In such circumstances, learned State Commission has committed error in holding that closing stock of Sector 29 was worth Rs.10,61,150/- and allowing appeal of the complainant. 7. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that, as complainant had accepted payment towards full and final settlement of the claim and failed to prove stock worth Rs.10,61,150/- in godown of Sector 29, learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and impugned order is liable to set aside. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 13.5.08 passed by Ld. State Commission in Appeal No. 541/07 M/s. Balaji Medicos Vs. Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and order of District Forum dismissing complaint is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.