CIMA No. 85 of 2015. Case: United India Insurance Company Limited, Srinagar Vs Mohammad Yousuf Wani.. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir (India)

Case NumberCIMA No. 85 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Shabir Hassan Kanth, Adv. and For Respondent: M. S. Latief, Zahid Ahmad, Adv.
JudgesN. Paul Vasanthakumar, C.J. And Ali Mohammad Magrey , J.
IssueJammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act (16 of 1987) - Sections 11, 16
CitationAIR 2016 J&K 37
Judgement DateSeptember 30, 2015
CourtHigh Court of Jammu and Kashmir (India)


N. Paul Vasanthakumar, C. J.

  1. This appeal is filed against the order made in Complaint No. 61 PF/2014, dated 12-3-2015 wherein the JandK State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, has quantified the compensation payable to the respondent and passed an award for Rs. 6.50 lac even though the appellant- company was agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lac 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 lac 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 Rules 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 Rs. 4 lac 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 lac 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 lac, by assuming that the building was 50 years old, therefore, the Consumer Commission was justified in slashing down the amount by Rs. 1.50 lac and balance amount of Rs. 6.50 lac was ordered as compensation and no evidence was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT