Blog

As no other point which required evidence, was contended, the Commission committed no error or illegality in passing the impugned judgment and the order. The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar Wing before the Hon’ble Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble  Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul held such an opinion regarding the case of  New India Assurance Company & Anr. vs. Farooq Ahmad Magnoo and Ors. [FAO(D) No.06/2019 ]. 

The facts of the case were associated with the case of the appellant- Insurance Company. The learned advocate,  Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Dar, representing the appellant submitted that the petition was preferred against the judgment and order dated 24 September 2018. It was passed by the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar. The Insurance Company accepted but was not satisfied by the claim respondents to the tune of Rs.15,71,613/-. A complaint before the Commission was preferred by the respondent. The Commission partially allowed the complaint by holding a reduction of 30% towards the cost adjustment. 

The learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal contended that the claimants/ respondents exercised a discharge voucher in full and final settlement of the claim. The controversy in such a case was confined to the quantum as stated by the State Commission in passing the impugned judgment. Moreover, it seemed that the State Commission solely decided the matter of deduction. It was revealed after reading the judgment passed by the commission that no such argument regarding the exercise of the discharge voucher or the alleged full and final settlement contended before. It was said that the appellant filed for a review of the judgment passed by the Commission but the appellant did not take any ground that claimants/ respondents had executed any discharge voucher.  

A submission by the counsel for the appellant was made which was of no use as the question arose for the consideration was if the surveyor had made any kind of deductions in accord to the law. Finally, an attempt was made regarding the unjustified award of litigation charges by the Commission of Rs.20,000/- and 7% interest. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar Wing said “As far as the litigation charges are concerned, it is a matter of discretion of the Commission and if it has been found that the claimants/ respondents are entitled to any litigation expenses, no error can be found with the same. It is not the case of the appellant that the litigation expenses are excessive or that the claimant/ respondents have not borne any litigation expenses to the above extent.”  Thus, considering all the stated facts, the Hon’ble High Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.

Hereinafter, the Hon’ble High Court held “The appellant/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount as per the award of the Commission after adjusting the amount already paid or deposited before the Registrar Judicial of this Court within one month and on deposit the said amount shall be released in favour of the claimants/ respondents. This direction has been necessitated as the Commission is not functional in the Union Territory.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu