ORDER : P.S. Rana, President 1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 04.01.2017 passed by Learned DCF/DCC in consumer complaint No. 117/2014 titled Vinender Vikrant v. President Hill Truck Operator Union and others. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant is permanent resident of Village Archandi Post Office Archandi Tehsil and District Kullu H.P. and is owner of apple orchards and also deals in sale of apples. It is pleaded that on dated 25.09.2013 complainant sent fruit consignment comprised of 458 (Four hundred fifty eight) cartons to M/s. Murlidhar Chhana Mal fruit company New Vegetable Market Jaipur Rajasthan through truck bearing registration No. HP58A-6571. It is pleaded that truck in question was hired by complainant through Hill Truck Operator Union Kullu H.P. It is pleaded that after five days when complainant inquired from M/s. Murlidhar Chhana Mal fruit company New Vegetable Market Jaipur Rajasthan about sale proceeds of consignment then it was informed to complainant by M/s. Murlidhar Chhana Mal fruit company New Vegetable Market Jaipur Rajasthan that no consignment was delivered at Jaipur Rajasthan. Thereafter complainant inquired the matter from President Hill Truck Operator Union Kullu H.P. but President Hill Truck Operator Union Kullu H.P. did not respond. It is pleaded that costs of fruit consignment was Rs. 458000/- (Four lac fifty eight thousand). It is pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service and committed unfair trade practice. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be directed to pay sum of Rs. 458000/- (Four lac fifty eight thousand) to complainant alongwith costs. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) for harassment. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 3 before learned DCF/DCC despite notice and opposite parties No. 1 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte by learned DCF/DCC. 4. Version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 pleaded therein that complainant himself diverted location of consignment from Jaipur to Agra. It is pleaded that Manager of complainant namely Ishrar resident of Saharanpur U.P. directed to deliver entire consignment at Agra and has received entire sale consideration amount at Agra. 4. Version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 pleaded therein that complainant himself diverted location of consignment from Jaipur to Agra. It is pleaded that Manager of complainant namely Ishrar resident of Saharanpur U.P. directed to deliver entire consignment at Agra and has received entire sale consideration amount at Agra. It is pleaded that complainant also executed compromise on dated 01.10.2013 on Non Judicial Stamp Paper in presence of witnesses and on this ground complaint filed by complainant be dismissed with special costs. 5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned DCF/DCC allowed consumer complaint and ordered opposite parties jointly and severally to pay sum of Rs. 458000/- (Four lac fifty eight thousand) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till actual payment. In addition learned DCF/DCC ordered opposite parties jointly and severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) to complainant. In addition learned DCF/DCC ordered opposite parties to pay costs of litigation to complainant to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand). Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned DCF/DCC appellants filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of appellants and co-respondent No. 1. Co-respondent No. 2 is already ex-parte and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether complainant is estopped from filing present consumer complaint on account of written compromise Annexure-D dated 01.10.2013 executed by complainant on Non Judicial Stamp Paper? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons; 8. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that on dated 25.09.2013 deponent sent fruit consignment comprised of 458 (Four hundred fifty eight) cartons to M/s. Murlidhar Chhana Mal fruit company New Vegetable Market Jaipur Rajasthan through truck bearing registration No. HP58A-6571. There is further recital in affidavit that truck in question was booked through Hill Truck Operator Union Kullu H.P. There is recital in affidavit that consignment was not delivered at Jaipur and opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and committed unfair trade practice. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant. 9. Opposite party No. 2 filed affidavit of Jogi Ram in evidence. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant. 9. Opposite party No. 2 filed affidavit of Jogi Ram in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of truck bearing registration No. HP58-6571. There is recital in affidavit that complainant booked consignment from Manali District Kullu H.P. to Jaipur Rajasthan but thereafter complainant himself through his Manager namely Ishrar resident of Saharanpur U.P. has diverted location of consignment from Jaipur Rajasthan to Agra U.P. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has received entire sale consideration amount from HFC Agra from Shekhar. There is further recital in affidavit that Manager of complainant namely Ishrar has delivered entire fruit consignment at HFC Agra and received entire sale consideration amount of fruit consignment. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant also executed written compromise on dated 01.10.2013 in presence of witnesses Annexure-D placed on record. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite party No. 2. 10. Submission of Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that order of learned DCF/DCC that opposite parties jointly and severally would pay sum of Rs. 458000/- (Four lac fifty eight thousand) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till actual payment is contrary to laws and contrary to proved facts in view of written compromise executed by complainant upon Non Judicial Stamp Paper Annexure-D dated 01.10.2013 placed on record and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused compromise Annexure-D executed inter se parties upon Non Judicial Stamp Paper on dated 01.10.2013. There is report of vendor in Non Judicial Stamp Paper that complainant himself purchased Non Judicial Stamp Paper Annexure-D on dated 01.10.2013. There is recital in compromise Annexure-D dated 01.10.2013 signed by (1) Complainant Vinender Vikrant (2) Shekhar (3) Mohd. Ishrar (4) Jogi Ram owner of truck No. HP58A-6571 and also signed by two officials of truck union Kullu. There is further recital in compromise Annexure-D placed on record that consignment sent in truck No. HP-58A-6571 was received in safe condition at Agra HFC. There is further recital in compromise Annexure-D that complainant has executed compromise in good senses. 11. State Commission is of the opinion that compromise Annexure-D signed by complainant Vinender Vikrant and Manager of complainant namely Mohd. There is further recital in compromise Annexure-D that complainant has executed compromise in good senses. 11. State Commission is of the opinion that compromise Annexure-D signed by complainant Vinender Vikrant and Manager of complainant namely Mohd. Ishrar is binding upon complainant and complainant is not legally competent to flout terms and conditions of compromise Annexure-D placed on record signed by complainant and his Manager namely Mohd. Ishrar in presence of witnesses. State Commission has used compromise Annexure-D placed on record as corroborative piece of evidence. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is estopped from filing present consumer complaint due to written compromise executed by complainant Annexure-D dated 01.10.2013 placed on record. 12. Complainant also did not file affidavit of his Manager Mohd. Ishrar in order to prove that location of consignment was not diverted at the instance of Mohd. Ishrar. On the contrary compromise Annexure-D dated 01.10.2013 placed on record has been signed by Mohd. Ishrar. No reason assigned by complainant for non filing of affidavit of Mohd. Ishrar. Adverse inference is drawn against complainant for non filing of affidavit of Mohd. Ishrar. State Commission is of the opinion that sole affidavit of complainant is not sufficient because affidavit of complainant is contradicted by owner of truck bearing registration No. HP-58A-6571 namely Jogi Ram by way of counter affidavit and complainant did not adduce any independent corroborative evidence by way of affidavit. 13. It is also proved on record that certificate has been issued by Registering and Licensing Authority Manali District Kullu H.P. on dated 27.07.2016 that vehicle bearing registration No. HP58A-6671 Manali has not been allotted to any individual. Certificate given by Registering and Licensing Authority Manali District Kullu H.P. is corroborative piece of evidence issued by public servant in discharge of his official duties and is relevant fact. 14. Submission of Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that order of learned DCF/DCCZ that opposite parties jointly and severally would pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) to complainant is also contrary to laws and contrary to proved facts and contrary to written compromise executed by complainant on dated 01.10.2013 Annexure-D placed on record and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be allowed is decided accordingly. 10000/- (Ten thousand) to complainant is also contrary to laws and contrary to proved facts and contrary to written compromise executed by complainant on dated 01.10.2013 Annexure-D placed on record and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that after signing of written compromise Annexure-D dated 01.10.2013 placed on record by complainant upon Indian Non Judicial Stamp Paper complainant is estopped from filing present consumer complaint against opposite parties due to his own acts and conduct. 15. Submission of Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that order of learned DCF/DCC that opposite parties would pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) to complainant is also contrary to laws and contrary to proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has himself executed compromise Annexure-D dated 01.10.2013 placed on record with opposite parties in presence of independent witnesses and complainant is estopped from filing present consumer complaint against opposite parties due to his own acts and conduct. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act are quasi judicial proceedings and it is also well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act are summary proceedings and are governed under Special Statutory Act and are not governed under Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and are governed under principles of natural justice only. 16. Submission of Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned DCF/DCC is in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of written compromise Annexure-D dated 01.10.2013 executed and signed by complainant himself in good senses and his Manager namely Mohd. Ishrar with opposite parties in presence of independent witnesses complainant is estopped from filing present consumer complaint due to his own acts and conduct after executing compromise Annexure-D placed on record. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that complainant filed any FIR against opposite parties for preparing written compromise in coercive manner Annexure-D placed on record as of today. Point No. 1 is decidedly accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal filed by appellants is allowed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is set aside and consumer complaint filed by complainant is dismissed in toto. Point No. 1 is decidedly accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal filed by appellants is allowed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is set aside and consumer complaint filed by complainant is dismissed in toto. Compromise Annexure-D dated 01.10.2013 executed by complainant and certificate issued by Registering and Licensing Authority Manali District Kullu H.P. dated 27.07.2016 while discharging public official duties shall form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. 18. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. File of Learned DCF/DCC alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith for information and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. F.A. No. 30/2017 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.