S. No. 16 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR FAO(D) 2/2021 CM(1233/2021) National Insurance Company Limited, Through its, Sr. Divisional Manager, Division Office, Srinagar. …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Aatir Javed Kawoosa, Advocate. Vs. 1. Nisar Ahmad 2. Rifat Residents of Umerabad Zainkoot Srinagar. ...Respondent(s) Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE O R D E R 14.07.2025 (Oral): 1. This appeal under Section 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Protection Act arises from an order dated 31st May, 2018, passed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, (“the commission”) in a complaint titled “Dr. Nisar Ahmad and Anr v. Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The impugned order is assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground that the Commission has not appreciated that, in the absence of the respondents proving their insurable interest, the insurance company cannot be directed to indemnify the loss, if any, caused to the insured. 3. Having heard Mr. Aatir Javed Kawoosa, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Commission dated 31st May, 2018, impugned before us, is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference. The Commission has considered the arguments which are raised by Mr. Aatir Javed Kawoosa, learned counsel for the appellant, before us, and rightly concluded that, after the contract between the insured and the insurer stands concluded, such a plea cannot be raised at the time of indemnification. 4. Whether or not the insured was the owner of the property insured with the appellant was an aspect that was required to be looked into by the Insurance Company at the time of entering into the contract of insurance. 5. It is not the case of the appellant that the insurance cover was taken by the respondents by any misrepresentation or fraud. In the absence of any such plea, we have no option but to concur with the view taken by the Commission. In the survey report submitted by the surveyor, admitting the claim of Rs. 1,06,880, no exception has been taken to the title of the respondents to the property. 6. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 14.07.2025 “Hilal” Whether the order is speaking/reportable? Yes/No.