Regional Manager vs Bashir Ahmad Rangrez and Brothers

Bbawani Singh, Chief Justice.

This group of 13 Appeals CIMA No. 246/1996; Regional Manager. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another V. Bashir Ahmad Rangrez and

Brothers; CIMA NO. 317/1997 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Mohammad Shafi and Mohammad Abbas; CIMA No.

22/1997,National Insurance Company Vs. Mohammad Shafi Shah; CIMA No. 23/1997, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohammad

Aslam; CIMA No. 250/1996; National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Mehraj ud din Mir; CIMA No. 75/1997. Regional Manager.

National Insurance Co. Ltd and Another Vs. Abdul Rashid Ahanger; CIMA No. 329/1997. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs.

Mohammad Ashraf; CIMA No. 328/1997, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Mohammad Ashraf; CIMA No. 330/1997.

National Insurance Company and Another Vs. Showkat Ahmad Laway; CIA No. 85/1995. The Regional Manager. National Insurance Company

Ltd. and Another Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Siraj and AnothenCI A NO.83/1995. Regional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another

Vs. Bashir Ahmad Qureshi; CIMA NO.23031/1996,National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Mohammad Tanq Raja and CIA NO.

175/1996. Regional Manager. National insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Bashir Ahmad) is proposed to be decided by this Judgment,

since common question is raised for consideration and decision by the parties.

Claimants approached the Appellants for payment of loss suffered by them to their property/stocks, which were insured with the Appellants. In

all these cases, surveyors have been appointed by the Appellants for assessment of loss and surveyors filed their reports in all the cases except

CIMA NO.317/1997.CIMANO. 250/1996, CIMA NO. 75/1997 AND CIMA NO 330/1997. Thereafter, the Appellants made payments to

the claimants and discharge vouchers were executed in full satisfaction and discharge of all claims upon them under policy for loss and/or damage

arising from a fire which occurred with respect to the property. These discharge vouchers reflect the amount paid to the claimants. They are signed

by the claimants as well as the competent officers of the Appellants.

After receiving the amount reflected in the discharge vouchers, the claimants preferred claims before the commission demanding interest on the

amount so paid and compensation. The commission has allowed the claims by ordering payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the

accepted liability from the dateiof loss till the date of final payment. In some cases, compensation for various amounts has also been allowed. '

Shri Javed Kawoosa, learned counsel appearing for Appellants, contended that after execution of discharge vouchers towards full and final

settlement of all claims against the Appellants, no further claim can be raised before the Commission nor the latter has competence to award the

same. With a view to buttress the submission, reference was made to 1994 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 126, (M/s P.K. Ramaiah and

Company Versus Chairman & Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corpn.); 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 324, (Nathani Steels

Ltd. Versus Associated Constructions) and 1998 SLJ357. (Mst. Salima Jabeen Versus National Insurance Company Ltd.). This contention is

opposed by Shri N.D. Kapra, learned counsel for respondents in these cases. It is contended that irrespective of executing discharge vouchers, the

claimants can raise dispute for interest and compensation before the Commission and this view is supported by Apex court decision in Lucknow

Development Authority Versus M.K. Gupta. (AIR 1994 Supreme Court 787).

We have considered the question carefully. Apex Court decisions to which our attention was drawn by Appellant's counsel cover the question

raised in these cases to a great extent. That apart, this Court has decided in Mst. Salima Jabeen's case and many other cases that after a claimant

has executed discharge voucher in favour of the Insurance Company(s) towards full and final settlement/satisfaction of the claim(s), no further claim

can be agitated before the Consumers Protection Commission. We also notice that in none of these cases, the amount has been received under

protest. Decisions referred to by Shri N.D. Kapra has no application to the question involved in these cases, therefore, it turns upon its own facts

and no assistance can be taken from this decision.

Consequently, we find merit in these Appeals and the same are allowed. Commission's Orders passed in these Appeals are hereby set aside

and claims rejected. Amounts deposited by the Appellants persuant to the direction of this Court or of its own in this Court or before the

Commission are ordered to be returned along with interest that may have accrued on the amounts