JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order made in Complaint No. 61 PF/2014 dated 12.03.2015 wherein the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, has quantified the compensation payable to the respondent and passed an award for Rs. 6.50 lacs even though the appellant-company was agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs as compensation for the respondent’s house which was damaged due to recent floods. 2. Two primary contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, after giving consent to receive Rs. 4 lacs as compensation, the claim filed by the respondent before the Consumer Disputes Commission is not maintainable and that the appellant-Company was not given chance to adduce evidence to justify the slashing of the amount by the Surveyor and the same is in violation of Rule 11 and 16 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987. 3. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the insured has not given any consent and the consent letter was purportedly received from the son of the respondent, who was not authorized to give the consent letter agreeing to receive 4 lacs as compensation. The said fact is not denied as from the letter of alleged consent, copy of which has been filed in the appeal papers, it is evident that alleged consent letter was signed/obtained from the son of the respondent. Further the cheque amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs and Rs. 50,000/- issued in favour of the respondent dated 13.10.2014 and 14.11.2014 respectively were not realized by the respondent. In such circumstances the contention raised by the appellant in that respect is devoid of any merit and the same is rejected. 4. In support of the second contention that appellant-company was not given chance to adduce evidence to justify the slashing of the amount by the Surveyor, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court made in CIMA No. 100/2015 ( United India Insurance Company v. Manzoor Ahmad Bhat decided on 29.07.2015). 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the surveyor erroneously deducted the amount which was originally assessed as Rs. 8 lacs, by assuming that the building was 50 years old, therefore, the Consumer Commission was justified in slashing down the amount by Rs. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the surveyor erroneously deducted the amount which was originally assessed as Rs. 8 lacs, by assuming that the building was 50 years old, therefore, the Consumer Commission was justified in slashing down the amount by Rs. 1.50 lacs and balance amount of Rs. 6.50 lacs was ordered as compensation and no evidence was produced to justify the slashing the amount to Rs. 4 lacs. 6. Though the appellant was not prevented from adducing the evidence to justify the slashing down of the amount, considering the request of the learned counsel for the appellant and having regard to the fact that procedure is contemplated under Section 11 and 16 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987, we are of the view that the order passed by the Consumer Commission needs to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order of the State Consumer Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commission for giving an opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence in support of slashing of the amount to Rs. 4 lacs within a period of four weeks and thereafter the Commission shall determine the quantum of compensation payable to the respondent as expeditiously as possible and not later than 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,62,500/- was deposited before the Consumer Commission at the time of filing the appeal and a sum of Rs. 87,000/- has been remitted to the credit of the Registrar Judicial of this Court on 29.09.2015. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as there is no dispute for paying a sum of Rs. 4 lacs to the respondent, the appellant-company may be directed to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 4 lacs to the respondent without prejudice to his rights to claim further compensation in the pending complaint. Learned counsel for the appellant has no objection in that respect. 10. In such circumstances the appellant-company is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4 lacs through a account payee cheque to the respondent within a period of two weeks from today. 11. Registrar Judicial of this Court is directed to transmit the amount of Rs. Learned counsel for the appellant has no objection in that respect. 10. In such circumstances the appellant-company is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4 lacs through a account payee cheque to the respondent within a period of two weeks from today. 11. Registrar Judicial of this Court is directed to transmit the amount of Rs. 87000/- to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The amount already deposited before the Consumer Commission as also the amount to be transmitted by the Registrar Judicial of this Court to the Consumer Commission shall remain with the Consumer Commission till final disposal of the complaint. 12. No costs.