PER S.K. GUPTA JUDGE 1.This is an appeal against the order dated 4th June, 1998 of the J&K State Consumers Protection Commission ("Commission"), whereby it has dismissed the complaint, but burdened the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/ - to the Insurance Company as cost of the litigation within six weeks. 2."Mohammad Yaseen Mir, herein appellant, approached the National Insurance Company to indemnity in respect of loss suffered by him to his stocks destroyed in an incident of fire on 9th/10th October, 1995 at Tangdar with whom it was insured. Mr. Warikoo came to be appointed as Surveyor, who estimated and assessed the loss at Rs. 6,83,000/-, but subsequently owing to some compelling reasons detailed in the complaint, the claimant executed a discharge voucher on the receipt of the amount for Rs. 4,32,748/- in full and final satisfaction of all claims upon the Insurance Company under the policy in respect of loss/damage arising out of fire, which occurred in respect of his stocks. The discharge voucher reflected the amount paid to the claimant duly signed by him and the competent Officer of the Insurance Company as well. It is further contended by the complainant that he had received a part payment and that too under protest. However, after the receipt of the amount specified in the discharge voucher, further claim came to be preferred by the complainant before the Commission demanding interest on Rs. 4,32,748/- at the rate of 12% from the date of loss till 14-02-1997 when the discharge voucher was executed by him and payment reflected therein received, balance claim amount of Rs. 5,67,252/- with interest from 10-10-1997, Rs. 5,000/ - as cost of litigation and further compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, explicitly, delineated in the penultimate para of the premises of the complaint. 3. The Commission, after evaluating, estimating and appreciating the evidence let in by the parties during the currency of the proceedings that the complainant had received the amount in full and final satisfaction of his claim under the contract of insurance, executed discharge voucher and in having approached with unclean hands and suppressed these vital facts dismissed the complaint and burdened the complainant with cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. 4. Heard the arguments, perused the record and considered the rival contentions of the parties. 5. The learned advocate, Mr. 5,000/-. 4. Heard the arguments, perused the record and considered the rival contentions of the parties. 5. The learned advocate, Mr. Javed Ahamd Kawoosa appearing for the respondent, asserted that on the execution of the discharge voucher towards full and final settlement of all claims against the Insurance Company, no further claim could be raised before the Commission. On scanning the evidence on record, it is found that complainant admitted the execution of the discharge voucher and submitted that there is no assurance given in the discharge voucher that it is a part payment. It is also no where recorded in the discharge voucher the expression received under protest, nor stated by the complainant in his affidavit. 6. The spinal question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether a claimant after having received the money and executed the discharge voucher in full and final settlement of his claim in favour of the Insurance Company can further agitate by filing a complaint in the Commission. 7. An identical matter came up for determination before a Division Bench of this High Court in group of cases in CIMA No. 246/ 1996, CIMA No. 317/1997, CIMA No. 22/1997, CIMA No. 23/1997, CIMA No. 75/1997, CIMA No. 329/1997, CIMA No. 328/1997, CIMA No. 330/1997, CIA No. 85/1995, CIA No. 83/1995 CIMA No. 280/1996 and CIA No. 175/1996 and it was held as under:- "That apart, this Court has decided in Mst. Salima Jabeens case and many other cases that after a claimant has executed discharge voucher in favour of the Insurance Company(s) towards full and final settlement/satisfaction of the claim(s), no further claim can be agitated before the Consumers Protection Commission." 8. This judgment is applicable in all fours to the facts of this case. The contention of the appellants counsel, Mr. Manzoor Ali, during debate that notwithstanding the execution of the discharge voucher, claimant can raise dispute for interest and compensation before the Commission, in view of the above judgment of the Division Bench referred to supra, is rendered bereft of any substance and devoid of any legal force. 9. The contention of the appellants counsel, Mr. Manzoor Ali, during debate that notwithstanding the execution of the discharge voucher, claimant can raise dispute for interest and compensation before the Commission, in view of the above judgment of the Division Bench referred to supra, is rendered bereft of any substance and devoid of any legal force. 9. We do not find any infirmity legal or factual in the impugned order of the Com mission so far as it relates to the dismissal of the complaint calling for any interference of facts and circumstances discussed above into account, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Commission in dismissing the complaint. As regards the cost of litigation to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the complainant for suppressing some facts and coming to the Commission with unclean hands being without any justification and cogent reasons is hereby declined. With this modification, the appeal stands dismissed.