Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being in need of money has approached the OP – Bank to finance by pledging gold ornaments weighing 54.800 grams to avail loan amount of Rs.12,000/-. Accordingly, loan was sanctioned and he availed Rs.12,000/-. It is alleged that on 23.12.2008 the Bank intimated the complainant that OP No.1 offered compensation of Rs.15,329/- after deducting loan amount  of Rs.12,000/- but the complainant protested for the low compensation and filed the complaint.

4.      OP No.1 filed written version admitting that gold loan was paid to the complainant on 10.11.2006 vide account no.57/70 by pledging 54.800 grams gold ornaments. On 10.11.2006 the complainant has pledged the gold ornaments and took the loan but on 16.3.2007 there was theft committed in the Bank premises and the matter was informed to the police after following due procedure they have settled the amount and paid Rs.15,329/- to the complainant after deducting  loan amount with interest. There was no deficiency in service on their part.

5.      OP No.2 filed written version stating that though the complainant filed complaint case against OP Nos. 1 and 2 but  he has no grievance against OP No.2. It is further stated that after the theft, OP No.2 made survey and settled the claim in favour of OP No.1 – Bank. So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

6.      After hearingboth the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxxxxxxxx

Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.57,865/- towards balance cost of the gold ornament along with Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days  from the date of communication of this order failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. However, no orders  against OP No.2.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  the learned District Forum committed error in law by passing the impugned order when the complainant himself has already received compensation amount of Rs.15,329/- by signing the voucher itself. Thus, the impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      The extent of loan of Rs.12,000/- on pledging the gold ornaments by the complainant is admitted fact. It is not in dispute that there was theft committed in the premises of the Bank and the OP – Bank has paid Rs.15,329/- to the complainant. But the fact remains whether there is any voucher signed by the complainant. In this regard the copy of the voucher is filed. We have gone through the same. The complainant has already signed the voucher towards full and final settlement of the compensation for Rs.15,329/-.  In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance vrs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills 1993 CPR 53 (SC)where Their Lordships observed that when discharge voucher signed without any demur or protest by complainant/respondent and claim settled with accord and satisfaction voluntarily without any protest or objection and the complainant has not proved any undue influence and misrepresentation, the cause of action does not lie to bring the complaint.

10.    With due regard to the above decision, in the instant case, the voucher shows towards full and final settlement without any undue influence and misrepresentation,  we accept the said voucher and found that no further cause of action lie for the complaint to file the case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

11.    The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

       Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.