Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 425 (JK)

Tanveer Ahmad v. J&K State Disputes

2015-08-19

BANSI LAL BHAT

body2015
JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J. 1. By medium of this writ petition, the petitioners assail the judgment rendered by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, (for brevity 'Commission') formulated on 21.12.2012, by virtue whereof the award passed by the Divisional Consumers Protection Forum (for short 'Forum) dated 28.11.2007, has been modified by disallowing the interest on the claim amount. The impugned judgment is assailed on the ground that the Forum had awarded only Rs. 5000/- on account of mental agony and grant of interest on assessed loss was to compensate the petitioners for delayed payment of the compensation. It is contended that exclusion of interest on the retained amount cannot be justified by the respondents as the petitioners have been deprived of utilization of money retained by the respondents. It is further contended that grant of interest accrues in a usual manner keeping in view the cost escalation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record and considered the matter. 2. After wading through the record, it comes to fore that an award for an amount of Rs. 2,00,482/- with interest @ 9% per annum reckoned three months after re-assessment passed by the Forum was assailed before the Commission on the ground that the same was based on improper surveyor report. Respondent's claim for compensation on account of damage suffered due to earthquake in September, 2005 came to be preliminarily settled by a Lok Adalat constituted by this Court for Rs. 52,226/- with further direction for appointment of one Mr. Andrabi as surveyor, who was directed to conduct fresh survey for further assessment of damage. It appears that Mr. Andrabi could not take up the assignment and one Mr. Chalkoo was appointed as surveyor who assessed the damage which according to the Respondent-Insurer was on higher side. The Insurer accordingly declined to make the payment as per the fresh surveyor report. The petitioners approached the Forum which passed the award impugned before the Commission. The Commission declined to interfere on the ground that the impugned award was based solely on the report of the surveyor appointed by the Insurer from amongst its panel. Finding that there was no reason to dispute the surveyor's report and damage assessed thereunder, the Commission refused to intervene. However, the Commission found that since an amount of Rs. The Commission declined to interfere on the ground that the impugned award was based solely on the report of the surveyor appointed by the Insurer from amongst its panel. Finding that there was no reason to dispute the surveyor's report and damage assessed thereunder, the Commission refused to intervene. However, the Commission found that since an amount of Rs. 5000/- have been awarded in addition to the principal amount of award; interest @ 9% per annum could not be allowed. The assessment and award of compensation by the Forum together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- in addition to principal amount of award confirmed by the Commission not having been questioned by the Insurer has attained finality and the concurrent findings on that score do not call for interference. The Commission, in view of the award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- in addition to principal amount of award, appears to be justified in holding that once such compensation was allowed, grant of interest became excessive. There appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order even on this aspect of the matter. Viewed in the above perspective, I find no perversity in the impugned order passed by the Commission, therefore, this petition being devoid of any force is dismissed. Interim direction passed by this Court shall stand vacated. Registry is directed to transmit the record to the Commission alongwith a copy of this judgment.