G.D. Sharma, J. 1. Through the medium of this appeal order dated 10-11-06 passed by the Divisional Forum, Srinagar (hereinafter to be referred as the `Forum') has been challenged. There is a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal and that has been explained by stating that the appellant got the knowledge about the passing of the order after 19 days and without losing any further time he took immediate steps to get the memo of appeal prepared by the concerned counsel but during winter vacations the office of the Commission had remained closed for some days and thus more delay was caused in filing the appeal. The delay is thus stated neither intentional nor actuated with some ulterior motive, but it was because of the circumstances beyond his control. The opposing counsel has controverted these facts. After perusing the facts of the case, we find that there are important questions of law and facts involved in the case which require adjudication on merits. Hence, sufficient cause is found to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application is accepted and delay is condoned. The appeal is accordingly registered in the concerned register. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant deals in the business of sale of footwears in the town of Pampore and he had obtained insurance policy bearing no. 11/96/0004 for a period of 12 months which commenced on 05-04-95 and had to expire on 04-04-96. The business premises as well as stocks in trade were insured under the insurance policy cover. During the currency of the insurance policy, on 08-11-95 an armed encounter took place at night hours between the armed forces and the militants as a result whereof, the insured premises alongwith stocks of trade lying therein caught fire and everything was reduced to rubbles. Immediately, the claim was raised with the respondent, but it was not settled on the ground that it was of false and fraudulent nature. The respondent initially appointed Mr. Paramjit Singh, Surveyor to assess the loss who inspected the site and demanded the relevant documents from the appellant which were provided to him within time. He assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 177442/- The case of the appellant is that without any rhyme or reason the respondent appointed second surveyor namely, Mr. The respondent initially appointed Mr. Paramjit Singh, Surveyor to assess the loss who inspected the site and demanded the relevant documents from the appellant which were provided to him within time. He assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 177442/- The case of the appellant is that without any rhyme or reason the respondent appointed second surveyor namely, Mr. M.M. Warikoo who in an ex-parte manner reduced the assessed amount to the tune of Rs. 135457/- An offer was made to the appellant for the acceptance of reduced assessment stated above. In order to escape from further delay and harassment for the reimbursement of loss, the appellant showed his acceptance to the proposal of that much amount only and while working under that impression, he had put his signatures on the discharge voucher which does not bear any date as well as does not reflect the date when that amount would have been paid. Respondent's intention because dishonest and a U-turn was taken on the basis of a false and cooked up story allegedly told by one Abdul Gani Dar that it was a bogus claim. In order to remove the doubt, the claim was referred to M/s Jhelum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd. for investigation. The report of investigation confirmed the loss, but even then no payment of the assessed amount by Mr. Warikoo was made and the complainant was compelled to file the complaint in the Forum on 11-01-99 about the loss which had occurred on 08-11-95. That during the pendency of the proceedings before the Forum, the assessed amount by Mr. Warikoo, surveyor in the sum of Rs. 135457/- was paid which fact has been recorded in the interim proceedings on 10-04-99 with an express condition that acceptance would not have any effect on the final outcome of the complaint. In the complaint, the complainant had claimed a relief of the difference of the assessed amount in the sum of Rs. 41985/- with interest @ 18% per annum alongwith an amount of compensation in the sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh. The learned Forum dismissed the complaint on the basis that the complainant had executed a discharge voucher which showed that he had received the amount of the claim. 41985/- with interest @ 18% per annum alongwith an amount of compensation in the sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh. The learned Forum dismissed the complaint on the basis that the complainant had executed a discharge voucher which showed that he had received the amount of the claim. The complainant having felt aggrieved by the dismissal order, has challenged the same in appeal by claiming the relief of the difference of the amount in the sum of Rs. 41985/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum payable at quarterly rests. The order interalia has been challenged on the following grounds:- A. Mr. Paramjit Singh, surveyor at the initial stage had assessed the actual loss to the tune of Rs. 177442/- and in the process of assessment, both the parties had participated. There was no justification to get the assessment reassessed from the second surveyor namely, Mr. Warikoo who reduced the assessed amount in an exparte manner to the extent of Rs. 135457/- B. The execution of the discharge voucher was done purely from the angle of settlement of the claim, but the respondent committed breach of the trust as with dishonest intention, the agreed amount was not paid. In the absence of any payment of the amount mentioned in the discharge voucher, it is established that discharge voucher is a fraudulent document and cannot be relief upon. C. The second assessment of the claim was made at the back of the appellant and it has no legal sanctity. 3. Heard the arguments. 4. At the outset Mr. Sami Yaqoob, advocate has drawn our intention on the so called discharge voucher which does not bear any date and starts with the statement "Received .... day of .... . from the Oriental Insurance Company Limited a sum of One Lac thirty five thousand four hundred seventy five only in full settlement of all claims upon the said Company for Loss or Damage and expenses obtained by me and of all demands arising from the Fire which occurred on 08-11-1995." The discharge voucher loses its significance at the outset because it does not reflect any amount which had been paid in lieu of its execution. In other words, without making any payment, the alleged discharge voucher is only a piece of paper obtained by practising fraud and such a conduct from a public undertaking like the respondent sends shock waves to the spine of every body who is concerned with its business dealings as a consumer. It lowers the dignity and prestige of the company amongst its depositors and makes it necessary for the administrative controlling officials at the higher echelons of the hierarchy to identify the black sheep who earn bad name for them and chop off the dead wood so that honesty and fair play would sway the business dealings over dishonesty and false hood. They should also recover the awarded amount from the pay of such delinquents so that the public money of the depositors is not drained out for their act of dishonesty. In view of such a factual matrix of the case in hand, the law cited at the bar by Mr. Khuroo, advocate as laid down in the case of "Hotel Sara Oriental Insurance Company" CIMA No. 64/2003 decided on 14-08-2007 by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K as well as 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 324 has no application and need not be discussed. 5. Be that as it may, in para no. 8 of the complaint, the appellant had clearly stated that the respondent had approved the claim of the appellant for Rs. 135457/- and he was required to sign the discharge voucher as a token of acceptance of the receipt of the amount of insurance claim in full and final settlement of his claim. The appellant with a view to prevent himself from being thrown from pillar to post by the respondent had signed the discharge voucher with a view to get the amount though meager one in order to make up his loss, but that amount was with-held even after obtaining his signatures on the discharge voucher. This act was an act of undue influence exercised upon him. In para no. 9 of the complaint, he was categorical in stating that the amount had not been received by him. The learned Forum was aware of the fact that the amount mentioned in the discharge voucher was paid to the appellant on 10-04-99 which fact has been reflected in the interim order of the proceedings. In para no. 9 of the complaint, he was categorical in stating that the amount had not been received by him. The learned Forum was aware of the fact that the amount mentioned in the discharge voucher was paid to the appellant on 10-04-99 which fact has been reflected in the interim order of the proceedings. The respondent has not placed on record the assessment made by the surveyor Mr. Paramjit Singh as well as the assessment made by the second surveyor Mr. Warikoo. Undoubtedly, the respondent was within its legal right to get the claim reassessed, but such a reassessment should have been made on the basis of some reasonable ground. The respondent had suspected the fairness of the claim on the alleged information received from one Abdul Gani Dar, but he was not produced as a witness in the proceeding. Not only that, after the receipt of investigation report from M/S Jhelum Investigating Services Pvt. Ltd. who confirmed the genuineness of the claim, the respondent should have discarded the report of Mr. Warikoo, surveyor which was lopsided as appellant had not been associated with it. Appellant's case is that all the relevant documents which were in his possession had been given by him to Mr. Paramjiit Singh, surveyor. All this shows that respondent was very much interested in carrying out the unfair trade and practice by denying the genuine payment of the claim to a bonafide consumer and this amounted to deficiency in rendering service of a grave nature. 6. In view of the discussion made above, we accept the appeal and direct the respondent to reimburse the appellant by making a further payment of Rs. 41985/- (Rupees forty one thousand nine hundred and eighty five only) with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of loss (i.e. 08-11-95) till the final payment is made. The amount of award should be paid by the respondent at the first instance to the appellant and then recover it from the concerned delinquent official/ officials in the manner stated in para no. 4 (Supra) of the order. The appeal is accepted with cost of litigation throughout quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the respondent. The appeal be consigned to records and the record of the Forum be returned at once.