HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This is  to consider an application filed by the opposite parties praying for passing an order to dismiss  the complaint case filed by the complainant.
2. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties  at length and  in full and carefully perused the record, the Interlocutory Application and its written objection thereto.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties has submitted  that the present case has been amicably settled among the parties outside the court and accordingly the opposite parties paid a sum of Rs.47,00,000/- towards one-time settlement about the dispute under the agreements dated 18.02.2016 and 04.04.2016 and complainant of this  case accepted the said amount. He has further argued that an agreement was executed between the parties of this case on 10.02.2020 and it was decided that the present case should be dismissed as withdrawal. So, the application filed by the opposite parties should be allowed.  
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the complainant  has argued that the  Interlocutory Application  filed by the opposite parties is defective and this Commission may not take  any cognizance on the basis of the defective  application and the alleged agreement was signed by  way of mislead or fraud. He has further argued that due to ill-motive  and act by the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering financially. The opposite parties’ only intention  was to enjoy the hard-earned money of the complainant. The complainant challenges the agreement which was allegedly done by fraud. So, the application filed by the opposite parties should be rejected with cost.
5. Having heard the learned  Advocate appearing for the parties and on careful perusal of the record it appears to me that both the parties entered into an agreement on 10.02.2020 and thereby agreed that on execution of the agreement dated 10.02.2020, the present complaint case pending before this Commission should be treated as withdrawal.
6. Opposite parties have filed the said agreement for  cancellation dated 10.02.2020 which discloses that  the complainant has accepted and acknowledged a sum of Rs.47,00,000/- towards one-time settlement about the dispute under the agreements dated 18.02.2016 and 04.04.2016 and  opposite party No. 1 has paid four demand drafts amounting to Rs.9,50,000/-  each on 10.02.2020 to the complainant and the complainant acknowledged the said amount as full and final settlement.
7. I personally examined the complainant Anil Agarwal on 11.09.2024 i.e., on the date of the  hearing of the application in open  Commission in presence of both the parties. During examination, the complainant admitted  before this Commission that he received the amount of Rs.47,00,000/- from the opposite parties and he signed the agreement for cancellation on 10.02.2020 voluntarily and the contents of  the said agreement are all correct and true.
8. Under these facts and circumstances, I am satisfied about the signature of the complainant  in the said agreement.
9. The complainant cannot ‘blow hot and cold in the same breath’,  ‘fast and loose’, or ‘approbate or reprobate’. The complainant has accepted and acknowledged the sum of Rs. 47,00,000/-  towards one-time settlement about the dispute under the agreement dated 18.02.2016 and 04.04.2016 and accordingly, opposite party No. 1 paid the demand drafts on 10.02.2020 to the complainant. The complainant to settle the dispute out of court  has entered into an agreement on 10.02.2020 and  by the execution of the said agreement,  he agreed to withdraw the present consumer case.
10.  Under the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the materials available on record,  I am of the view that the complainant is, therefore, stopped by his act,  conduct  or acquiescence to continue  the present consumer case. The matter has been solved by the  parties outside the Commission.
11.  Judicial time cannot be wasted in the manner as suggested by the learned Advocate appearing for the complainant. 
12. Under these facts  and circumstances, I am of the view that the  complaint case is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed.
13.  In  the result, the Interlocutory Application being No.  IA/389/2021  be and the same is allowed and the complaint case is dismissed.
14.  There will be no order as to costs.
15.  The Consumer Case is, thus, disposed of, accordingly.