Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Haji Aftab Ahmad Qureshi on 20 September, 2017
Author: Ali Mohammad Magrey
Bench: Ali Mohammad Magrey
Serial No. 12
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
CIMA No. 172/2015 Date of Order: 20th Sept. 2017
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs.
Haji Aftab Ahmad Qureshi
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge
Appearance:
For appellant(s): Ms Rifat Khalida, Advocate
For respondent(s): Mr N. A. Shala, Advocate
i/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No
Press/Media?
ii/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No
Digest/Journal?
Badar Durrez Ahmed, CJ (Oral)
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. On going through the impugned order dated 11.06.2015 passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') we are of the view that the same is bereft of any reasons for awarding an additional amount of Rs. 1,24,000/- to the respondent. Counsel for the parties are also in agreement that this matter could be remanded to the said Commission for a hearing afresh.
3. One of the points which has been urged before us, but is not reflected in the order, is that the average clause cannot be applied when the difference between the value at risk and the sum insured is within the band of plus minus 15%, this of course has to be discussed and considered on merits. But, there is no discussion on this aspect of the matter. Secondly, we find that the Commission CIMA No. 172/2015 Page 1 of 2 has merely stated that the deduction at 1.5% per annum for the age of the building which has been taken to be five years appeared to be excessive. This is merely the ipse dixit of the Commission for which no reason or foundation has been provided in the impugned order. Even the rate of repairs has merely been stated not to be proportional which again is not backed by any foundational fact.
4. It is in these circumstances and with the agreement of the learned counsel for the parties that we are setting aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2015 and remitting the matter to the said Commission to decide the complaint No. 93/2015 afresh after hearing the parties on both sides and giving reasons for its decision. We are making it clear that we have not examined the relative merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and that is left open to the Commission.
5. Since this matter has been pending for some time, we request the Commission to expedite the hearing and disposal of the complaint. In the first instance, the complaint shall be listed before the learned Commission on 16.10.2017. The amount that the appellant had deposited with the Registrar Judicial of this Court be released to the appellant.
6. The appeal stands allowed as above.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey) (Badar Durrez Ahmed)
Judge Chief Justice
Srinagar
20th Sept. 2017
Altaf
CIMA No. 172/2015 Page 2 of 2