Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 289 (JK)

Concord Residency v. Oriental Insurance Company

2017-07-03

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, BADAR DURREZ AHMED

body2017
JUDGMENT : Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. These cross appeals are preferred against the common order of the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Commission’) dated 01.06.2015 in inter alia complaint No. 68/PF/2014. 2. Mr. Kawoosa, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company which has filed CIMA No. 97/2016 submitted that the respondent in that appeal and the appellant in the accompanying appeal being CIMA No. 91/2015 would have no case whatsoever inasmuch as the said respondent (Concord Residency) had agreed with the assessment made by the surveyor and that the amount of Rs. 10,91,304.63 as assessed by the surveyor had been accepted and a discharge voucher to that effect had also been executed by Mr. Abdul Majid Chaku S/o Ghulam Rasool Chaku, who was a partner of Concord Residency. In the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, a copy of the consent letter has been annexed as Annexure A-2 and a copy of the discharge voucher has been annexed as Annexure A-3. 3. On the basis of the above said two documents, Mr. Kawoosa, submitted that, in view of the Supreme Court decision in United India Insurance Co. v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors: (1999) 6 SCC 400 as also the Division Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ghulam Mohammad Dagga (CIMA No. 63/2015) decided on 29.07.2015, once a discharge voucher has been voluntarily executed and the complainant has not alleged that the acceptance was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence, no further claim could be made and, therefore, the fact that the said Commission granted an additional amount to the complainant (Concord Residency) by increasing the amount from Rs. 10,91,304/- to Rs. 16,11,304/- was contrary to law. 4. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for Concord Residency submitted that the claim was of a much larger amount and that the Insurance Company was wrong in slashing the claim to Rs. 10,91,304/- when in fact the claim amount was Rs. 37,22,600/- which had earlier been worked out by the surveyor. The learned counsel further submitted with a reference to the complaint that one of the complainants (i.e., partner of the complainant firm) was asked to sign some blank papers and therefore the said consent letter and discharge voucher cannot be regarded as having been executed voluntarily. 5. 37,22,600/- which had earlier been worked out by the surveyor. The learned counsel further submitted with a reference to the complaint that one of the complainants (i.e., partner of the complainant firm) was asked to sign some blank papers and therefore the said consent letter and discharge voucher cannot be regarded as having been executed voluntarily. 5. We have seen the copy of the consent letter. It is in the hand of Mr. Abdul Majid Chaku who is a partner of Concord Residency. The said consent letter clearly states that the said partner agreed with the assessment of Rs. 10,91,304.63 done by the surveyor against policy No. 262394/11/2014/75 of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The said consent letter is dated 17.10.2014. There is also a discharge voucher, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure A-3 in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The said discharge voucher had also been signed by the same Mr. Abdul Majid Chaku who is a partner in Concord Residency. The discharge voucher clearly indicates that the said company accepted the sum of Rs. 10,91,304.63 as full and final settlement of the claim on account of loss occasioned by floods which occurred in September 2014 in respect of the said policy. The discharge voucher is a printed form and the consent letter is in the handwriting of Mr. Abdul Majid Chaku. Therefore, the plea that one of the partners was made to sign some blank paper does not and cannot hold any water. 6. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the claimant had executed the discharge voucher voluntarily and had given its consent without any protest. In such eventuality, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above and also the said decision of a Division Bench of this Court, the Insurance Company’s appeal would have to be allowed and that of the claimant would have to be dismissed. 7. It is ordered accordingly. The impugned order dated 01.06.2015 is set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs.