PER DOABIA,J: 1. Full and final discharge of the financing Bank would absolve the appellant Company from all liabilities is the view point projected by the appellant in this appeal, which is preferred against the decision given by the State Commission, constituted under the J&K Consumer Protection Act of 1987. 2. Before noticing the point of view put across by the appellant, the facts in brief be noticed. 3. It is not in dispute that the business premises belonging to the respondent suffered damage in a Bomb Blast. Claim was lodged, Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 44,059/-. The appellant Company however, examined the report of the surveyor and was of the view that the claim was sustainable to the extent of Rs. 29,532/ -. This amount was paid to the State Bank of India as it was the State Bank of India, which had paid the premium for and on behalf of the respondent. Needless to mention that the State Bank of India had given financial (sic) entitled to the reimbursement of the financial assistance given by it. The premium which was paid was debited to the account of Madan Lal complainant. The complainant was however, not satisfied with the settlement arrived at between the Company and the Bank. As the surveyor had assessed the amount at Rs. 44,059/- he pleaded that he is entitled to the balance of the amount. This view found favour with the State Commission. A direction has been given to pay a sum of Rs. 14.527/- to the complainant. Interest has also been allowed. This is at the rate of 18%. Interest has been allowed on the amount already received by the complainant through the Bank. This is from the date of loss till the payment was received by the State Bank of India. 4. The basic argument which is urged is that in terms of the policy, the conditions whereof have been enumerated in the order passed by the Commission, the complainant was not entitled to any other further amount. The two conditions on which reliance has been placed are being noticed below: 1. 4. The basic argument which is urged is that in terms of the policy, the conditions whereof have been enumerated in the order passed by the Commission, the complainant was not entitled to any other further amount. The two conditions on which reliance has been placed are being noticed below: 1. That upon any, moneys becoming payable under this policy the same shall be paid by the Company to the Bank and such part of any money, so paid as may relate to the interests of other parties insured hereunder shall be received by the Bank as Agent for each other parties; 2. That the receipts of the Bank shall be a complete discharge of the company therefore and shall be binding on all parties insured hereunder". Two questions which arise are (i) as to whether the clauses on which the reliance has been placed would stand in the way of the complainant and (ii) as to whether the printed proforma was in fact part of the Insurance Policy. 5. What is placed on the record is that the proforma of the aforesaid policy. In this a separate leaflet has been inserted. As to whether this was part of the policy which had in fact been issued has not been established. The second question would be as to whether the two clauses on which the reliance has been placed would stand in the way of the complainant in getting adjudication when amount stands received by the Bank. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Bank having received the payment would debar the complainant to make any further claim. Reliance is being placed on a decision given by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras in case P.K. Malaichamy Vs. Bank of Madurai Ltd. and others, III (1994) CPJ 84. A further reliance is being placed on a decision given by the Bihar State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Patna in the case Nayak Mills Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Samastipur & anr, II (2000) CPJ 371, wherein it was held that where the Bank has obtained an Insurance cover then the Bank is a necessary party to the proceedings which may be taken by the person who had received the financial assistance from the Bank. So far as the first case is concerned that is no authority for the proposition put across by the appellant. So far as the first case is concerned that is no authority for the proposition put across by the appellant. In that case the Bank filed a suit for recovery of the loan. Some payment was made to the Bank. The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the Bank has received low value. As civil suit was pending, the issue was not settled, but the view expressed was that the complainant can contend in the civil court that there was a collusion between the Bank and the Insurer and the settlement was not in accordance with law. Therefore, to say that once the Bank has received the amount without the knowledge challenge the transaction would not be apt. 7. Again the view expressed by Bihar State Consumer Commission (supra) is not an authority for the proposition which is put across by the appellant. 8. In the objections preferred by the Insurance Company it has not been pleaded that the complainant cannot proceed in the absence of State Bank of India. Had such an objection been taken at an earlier stage, this procedural lacuna could have been taken care of. The appellant having abandoned this plea cannot raise this plea in appeal. 9. The question therefore, which really requires to be gone into is as to whether the payment made to the Bank which was less than what was assessed by the surveyor would debar the respondent-complainant from approaching the forum created under the Act of 1987. 10. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the cases referred to above are only authorities for the proposition that in case any amount is found payable and if the Bank gives a receipt then that would be a valid discharge qua that payment only. As to what would be meant by the term "money becomes payable under this policy" is a matter which requires serious consideration. Is it the determination as may be made by the Insurance Company of its own without reference to the complainant or is a determination made by an authority other than the Insurance Company. 11. As to what would be meant by the term "money becomes payable under this policy" is a matter which requires serious consideration. Is it the determination as may be made by the Insurance Company of its own without reference to the complainant or is a determination made by an authority other than the Insurance Company. 11. We are of the opinion that the money which is found to be payable would not represent the money which is found payable by the appellant company of its own, but which is ultimately found to be payable by the (sic) matter by any other forum or authority judicial or quasi-judicial which is competent to give a decision. It is only when final determination is made and an amount has been found to be payable and that amount is paid to the Bank and the Bank issues a receipt then that payment would be a valid payment and its receipt by the Bank is to be taken as a discharge for the liabilities of the persons making the payment. In the present case the amount payable would be the amount which became payable after determination was made by the State Commission and not what was found to be payable on its own by the Insurance Company. There is nothing on the record that payment which was made to the Bank was after due notice to the complainant and he had consented to this arrangement. Therefore, to say that the complainant was debarred from raising a claim is an argument which cannot be accepted. Two authorities on which reliance has been placed are clearly distinguishable. 12. The appellant Insurance Company was aware of the fact that the surveyor had settled the claim for Rs. 44,049/-. The appellant Insurance Company chose to pay Rs. 14.527/- to the State Bank of India. There is nothing on the record that the appellant Insurance Company brought this fact to the notice of the State Bank of India i.e. the surveyor has assessed a higher" amount and the amount what, is being offered is a lesser amount. If this be the position can it be said that a valid discharge was given or could it be given. If this be the position can it be said that a valid discharge was given or could it be given. In this regard it would be apt to refer to the statement of law as contained in Corpus Juris Seeundum Act 46 Certain paragraphs are relevant and are being quoted: Payment to an assignee of the policy will operate as a discharge if made without notice of any fraud or illegally in the assignment. However, if the assignment is void, payment by insurer to the assignee, with knowledge of the facts, will not operate as a discharge, and the assignor or his personal representatives may recover the amount of the policy from insurer." Page No. 137 "x x x x x A partial payment under such a clause is a partial defense to a subsequent action on the policy, but it has been held that insurer cannot fully discharge its obligation by paying to one other than a representative of insureds estate less than the full amount due, and obtaining a release from such person." At page 137, it is stated: "An agent authorised to receive payment of loss has no authority to receive less than full payment there of, "He Lanahan Vs. Marine Ins Co. CMd. 282 F. 240, affirmed, CCA 290 F. 685. At page 141, fact of partial payment has been noticed and what has been said is being reproduced below: "Payment to the proper person fully discharges insurers liability under the policy. in the case of payment of the entire amount due, or in the case of partial payment to the extent of the amount paid." 13. In the aforementioned statement of law is taken note of then it becomes apparent that the insurance company was supposed to bring on record and prove it as a fact that the State Bank of India was informed about the fact that the surveyor has settled the claim for a higher amount, but lesser amount is being offered. Such is not the position in the present case. (Sic) some thing which is akin to concealment of facts. Payment made in these circumstances cannot be said to be a valid payment. 14. However, with regard to interest the rate of interest should be 12%. This would be payable two months after the surveyor submitted its report. Such is not the position in the present case. (Sic) some thing which is akin to concealment of facts. Payment made in these circumstances cannot be said to be a valid payment. 14. However, with regard to interest the rate of interest should be 12%. This would be payable two months after the surveyor submitted its report. This would apply to the liability as created by the State Commission and would also apply to that amount which was paid by the insurance Company of its own to the Bank. The amount which has become payable would be deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. It is thus concluded: i) Payment of insurance premium was no doubt made by the State Bank of India but this was on behalf of the complainant and this amount was duly debited to the account of the complainant: ii) that a loss did take place. Surveyor had assessed the amount. The appellant company make payment of lesser amount to the State Bank of India: iii) It is not the case of the appellant Company that the State Bank of India was made aware of the fact that the surveyor had settled for a higher amount: iv) The complainant rightly lodged the complaint. The plea that payment made to the State Bank of India, the complainant was rightly negatived. This is because- a) complainant was not privy to this transaction: b) loss was sustained by the complainant and not by the State Bank of India and therefore, the complainant had a right to contend that the payment was not proper: v) The amount payable would be the amount which came to be settled by the forums under the 1987 Act or as may be settled by (Sic) vi) Rate of interest would be 12% per annum and would be payable as indicated above. There is thus no merit in this appeal. 15. A copy of this order shall be sent to the State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh. 16. If any amount is payable by the complainant to the State Bank of India, then the payment would be made to the Bank and not to the complainant. State Bank of India would lodge its claim with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 17. 16. If any amount is payable by the complainant to the State Bank of India, then the payment would be made to the Bank and not to the complainant. State Bank of India would lodge its claim with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 17. This appeal is accordingly found to be without any merit and is disposed of with the aforementioned modification vis-a-vis the rate of interest.