The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of 'accord and satisfaction,' which bars further claims after the acceptance of a payment without objection.

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petitioner herein, who as a consumer under the then existing Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (now repealed) had failed to convince the District Consumer Forum, Jammu as well as the appellate forum of the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission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. 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- Unite