JUDGMENT : (Rahul Bharti, J.) 1. Through this writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein, who as a consumer under the then existing Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (now repealed) had failed to convince the District Consumer Forum, Jammu as well as the appellate forum of the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission about the genuineness of his insurance claim, is seeking to upset the concurring view point of the said two consumer fora. The institution of this writ petition is of 07.06.2014. 2. The fact-line of the case needs to be set out. The petitioner, being a shopkeeper, came to secure from the respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd. a Shopkeepers Insurance Policy no. 111802/48/06/34/00000589 dated 27.12.2006 for insurance period 29.01.2007 to 26.12.2007. The risk and the property insured there under was Fire & Allied Perils with respect to shop premises and the stock in trade of all kinds of kiryana, dry fruits, footwears, cosmetics, manyari, hosiery, crockery, edible items, watches, stationary, cigarettes, beedies, tobacco etc and the similar nature of goods pertaining to insured trade. The business premises and the stock in trade were insured for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each. The petitioner had paid a premium of an amount of Rs.2,269/-. 3. After having secured the said insurance cover, an accident of fire came to take place at the insured place of the petitioner’s business premises on 08.09.2007 which allegedly caused damage both to the stock in trade as well as to the insured building premises of the petitioner. The cause of the alleged accident was said to be short-circuit in the electricity wiring of the premises. 4. The petitioner is said to have lodged a notice of the said incident and a claim for insurance with the respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd. 5. M/s Alak Consultants Pvt. Ltd., a private insurance Surveyor’s concern came to be deputed by the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd. for survey and assessment of the subject claim. Said surveyor came to inspect the place of incident on 14.09.2007 to come out with a final survey report. 6. M/s Alak Consultants Pvt. Ltd., a private insurance Surveyor’s concern came to be deputed by the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd. for survey and assessment of the subject claim. Said surveyor came to inspect the place of incident on 14.09.2007 to come out with a final survey report. 6. The said surveyor came up with an assessment of loss with respect to stock to an amount of Rs.69,082/- and with respect to the shop premises at an amount of Rs.1,12,855/-, both totaling to Rs.1,71,967/- as being an amount assessed for the damage payable to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner came to receive the payment of the amount of Rs. 1,68,947/- vide cheque no. 252683 dated 14.01.2008 drawn on Punjab National Bank. The delivery of said cheque to the petitioner came to be evidenced by a voucher dated 14.01.2008, bearing signature of the petitioner in acknowledgement of the cheque receipt. The petitioner came to encash the said cheque without any demur or reservation whatsoever. 8. After having availed the cheque payment so tendered by the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd., the petitioner had felt that he had suffered deficiency of service at the hands of the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd. on account of not being compensated to the full for the actual extent of damage caused to the insured stock in trade and the insured business premises and thus led himself to approach the District Consumer Forum, Jammu with a complaint under section 10 of the Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987. 9. In this complaint, the petitioner coined a pretext that he came to be handed over the said cheque by the surveyor – Ravi Dhar upon a meeting taking place between the two at Indira Chowk, Jammu in which the petitioner came to be told by said Ravi Dhar that the petitioner was not being indemnified to the extent of risk insured and, therefore, for the rest of the insurance claim the petitioner could approach the Court. This pretext was pleaded by the petitioner to justify his act of accepting of cheque payment so tendered by the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd. In his complaint, except for the aforesaid pretext, the petitioner came forward with no further narrative as to whether he ever approached the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd. at its Udhampur Branch which had issued the policy with a grouse that the cheque handed over by Mr. Ravi Dhar for an amount of Rs. 1,68,947/- was deficient payment of his insured claim or the reason for under compensation at the end of the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd. 10. The District Consumer Forum, Jammu upon the preliminary objections raised by the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd., about the maintainability of the complaint in the face of the fact that the petitioner had received the insurance claim payment against a discharge voucher for full and final settlement of claim was not entitled to register a complaint for deficiency of service on the part of the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd., the District Consumer Forum, Jammu came to draw out an observation to the effect that there was no whisper in his consumer complaint from the petitioner’s end as to the circumstances under which he encashed the cheque for said amount of Rs. 1,68,947/- tendered by the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd., without even a slightest fuss or objection. In fact, the District Consumer Forum, Jammu reckoned the petitioner to have resorted to concealment of vital facts in the complaint. The District Consumer Forum, Jammu thus came to hold the complaint filed by the petitioner not maintainable in the face of the discharge voucher so executed by him. Thus, the complaint filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by a judgment dated 05.09.2012 by the District Consumer Forum, Jammu. 11. Against this judgment, the petitioner came to prefer a statutory appeal before the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu on its file no. 3421/2013 instituted on 03.10.2012. 12. Thus, the complaint filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by a judgment dated 05.09.2012 by the District Consumer Forum, Jammu. 11. Against this judgment, the petitioner came to prefer a statutory appeal before the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu on its file no. 3421/2013 instituted on 03.10.2012. 12. The petitioner, as an appellant, was also not able to convince the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission about his narrative to wriggle out of the discharge voucher so tendered by him in accepting the payment of the insurance claim to the amount of Rs.1,68,947/- as against his alleged claim of higher amount of loss suffered by him in the context of his stock in trade and the premises under insurance. The J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission however came to make a slight addition to the amount so paid by the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd. to the petitioner by adding of an amount of Rs.22,000/- payable to the petitioner from the respondent-United India Insurance Company’s Ltd. end. It is pertinent to mention here that even in his appeal before the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu the petitioner had carried forward the same script as was before the District Consumer Forum, Jammu with respect to the execution of discharge voucher by him in accepting the payment of an amount of Rs.1,68,947/-. Thus, the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu came to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner vide its judgment dated 27.01.2014. 13. It is against the said two judgments of the two fora that the petitioner has come forward with the petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India to upset the same and salvage his claim against the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd. 14. This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India but for the petitioner it seems that he is taking it as if it is an extension of appellate jurisdiction vested with this Court qua the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and that is the reason for the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to engage us in examination of the adjudication at the end of the District Forum as well as the State Commission. 15. 15. The petitioner is seeking to impress us that he was a victim of fraud at the hands of the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd. which managed to dupe him of his legitimate insurance claim for the full amount of the insurance cover availed loss suffered by him with respect to the insured premises as well as with respect to the insured stock. 16. However, the fact is that the actual position which came to check mate the petitioner’s own complaint before the District Forum was that after having received the payment of assessed loss of Rs.1,68,947/-, the petitioner had tendered a receipt voucher without any objection or even hint thereof. This position was duly taken note of by the two fora below to concur that the petitioner was not to be seen and attended as an aggrieved consumer at the hands of the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd. for having rendered a deficient service in favour of the petitioner qua the insurance claim. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service a heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “United India Insurance Vs Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and others,” (1999)6 SCC 400 . By placing reliance upon this judgement, the learned counsel for the petitioner intends to submit that even if the petitioner came to execute the voucher purportedly in acknowledgement of full payment made by the respondent- United India Insurance Company Ltd., still the mere execution of discharge voucher and acceptance of insurance claim by the petitioner would not estop the petitioner from making further claim. 18. We do not have any disagreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner in the context of the judgment above cited i.e. United India Insurance Vs Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and others (supra) provided the fact position of the present case would have been similar to the one as involved in the case cited above. 18. We do not have any disagreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner in the context of the judgment above cited i.e. United India Insurance Vs Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and others (supra) provided the fact position of the present case would have been similar to the one as involved in the case cited above. In the present case the petitioner has no where set up or even suggested a case before the District Forum in his consumer complaint that he was a victim of any fraud played upon him by the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd. In fact, it is the petitioner who came forward with a version that the surveyer/agent of the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd. called him to meet and hand over him with the cheque for an amount of Rs.1,68,947/- with words that for the rest of the amount the petitioner is to resort to court case. Now if this version is to be taken as it is even then where is the question of any fraud having been played upon the petitioner by said agent of the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd. In view of the said purported statement of the agent of the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd. that the petitioner needed to resort to court case for securing the payment of the rest of the insurance claim, then the petitioner ought to have at least first approached the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd. concerned branch at Udhampur from where he had availed the policy to lodge his complaint or grievance that why has he been under paid with respect to his insurance claim and that why is he being compelled to go for a court case. Nothing of this sort was done by the petitioner to be so said in his consumer complaint before the District Forum. 19. Nothing of this sort was done by the petitioner to be so said in his consumer complaint before the District Forum. 19. Thus, by merely saying that the agent of the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd. had handed over him the cheque against the execution of a voucher receipt by the petitioner, the petitioner’s act of encashing the said to realize the payment of the amount in his favour amounted to acceptance of the fact that he has been indemnified for the loss assessed with respect to his insured premises and stock and in that respect he was not subjected to any fraud by the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd. 20. The act on the part of the petitioner in receiving the cheque payment and executing receipt voucher amounts to accord and satisfaction in the eyes of law and for him to get out of the spell of the said principle of law, the petitioner was required to have pleaded as to what fraud and in what manner fraud came to be played by the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd. in particular, in settling his insurance claim at an amount of Rs.1,68,947/- by offering payment thereof and he (the petitioner) accepting the same without any demur or protest at the contemporary point of time. In “M/s Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India,” 2006 AIR SC 2331, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came to draw reliance for the principle of “accord and satisfaction” as enunciated in 1889 (22) QBD 610: Day v. McLea bearing the statement of law as follows:- “If a person sends a sum of money on the terms that it is to be taken, if at all, in satisfaction of a larger claim; if the money is kept, it is a question of fact as to the terms upon which it is so kept. The accord and satisfaction imply an agreement to take the money in satisfaction of the claim in respect of which it is sent. If accord is a question of agreement, there must be either two minds agreeing or one of the two persons acting in such a way as to induce the other to think that the money is taken satisfaction of the claim, and calls him to act upon that view. In either case, it is the question of fact.” 21. If accord is a question of agreement, there must be either two minds agreeing or one of the two persons acting in such a way as to induce the other to think that the money is taken satisfaction of the claim, and calls him to act upon that view. In either case, it is the question of fact.” 21. In this regard, we may also refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Sehtia Shoes” 2008(5) SCC 400 , in which the position of law with respect to execution of discharge voucher and filing of a consumer complaint by an aggrieved insured has been spelled out. The said judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in fact reinforces the fundamental position of law that fraud/coercion/misrepresentation or vitiating factors with respect to a consent of a person upon him same has been played upon and by that even if a person has come to execute a discharge voucher still he/she can file a consumer complaint provided the fact of fraud/coercion/misrepresentation or vitiating factor of like nature has been played out in clear terms so as to generate a prima facie impression in the mind of a Tribunal that the matter requires inquiry and investigation. 22. In the present case, the complaint of the petitioner is far away from setting up any such case. Whatever the petitioner has put up in the complaint is self entertained conviction at the end of the petitioner with whatever the respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd. was aiming to pay and indemnify. The petitioner was getting paid in the form of payment through cheque against signing of discharge voucher and for rest of the amount the petitioner has to resort to litigation. This impression even if given to the petitioner by the agent of the respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd., the same per se does not become fraud/coercion/undue influence/misrepresentation or vitiating factor of like nature, more particularly when the petitioner at his own did not deem it fit to notify the respondent-United India Insurance Company’s Ltd. concern Branch at Udhampur about the development having so taken place between him and the agent of the respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd., as named by the petitioner in his complaint. In fact, the petitioner even omitted the said agent from being impleaded in his consumer complaint before the District Forum Jammu as also before the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The petitioner, thus, himself ruled out any angle of foul play upon him by the said agent Mr. Ravi Dhar. 23. It is in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the District Forum, Jammu and the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission erred in their respective judgments in coming and concurring to a conclusion that the petitioner had given due discharge with respect to his insurance claim for the loss so suffered by him with respect to the premises and the stock. The petition is, therefore, found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.