1 OWP No. 430/2012 Serial No.06 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR OWP 430/2012 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER S. HAZARA SINGH …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Areeb Kawoosa, Advocate Vs. MOHAMMAD YOUNIS BHAT AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 28.05.2025 Per Sanjeev Kumar-J (oral): 1. Impugned in this petition filed by petitioner-National Insurance Company Ltd. [“the Company”], is an order dated 1st March, 2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, [“the Commission”], in Appeals No. 01/2012 & 73/2012, whereby the Commission has disposed of both the appeals and modified the order of the Divisional Protection Forum, Kashmir, [“the Forum”], dated 29th December, 2011, and provided that, in addition to the amount awarded by the Forum, the Company shall pay an enhanced amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and enhanced litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/-. The Commission also directed the respondent insured to surrender the salvage of the vehicle to the Company for its auction and realization of sale proceedings. 2. The appeal by the Company is restricted to the extent the Commission has provided that the insured shall surrender the salvage, and the same Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 30.05.2025 2 OWP No. 430/2012 shall be auctioned by the Company. And the Company has been permitted to appropriate sale proceeds. The appellant Company is also aggrieved of the enhancement of compensation from Rs. 5,000/-, as awarded by the Forum, to Rs. 50,000/-. There is also a challenge to the judgment to the extent of enhancement of litigation charges from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the Commission deserves to be modified only to the extent it provides that the insured shall surrender the salvage to the Company, which may then auction the same and retain the sale proceeds. We are modifying it, for the reason that in terms of surveyors report which has been accepted by the Forum, the salvage was to be retained and sold by the insured and, in lieu thereof, the Company was permitted to deduct a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the total assessed loss. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Company that the salvage, which remained in the possession of the insured, has either been sold by him or got destroyed over the years since 2004, and, therefore, there is no point in requiring the insured to surrender the salvage for auction at this stage. 5. We, however, do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the Company that the enhancement of compensation from Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by the Forum to Rs. 50,000/- by the Commission is either excessive or unjustified. Indisputably, the insured became entitled to the loss assessed by the surveyor appointed by the Company in the year 2004. However, the payment of the of the assessed damage was denied to the insured on the ground that, at the time of accident, Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 30.05.2025 3 OWP No. 430/2012 the vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, in that, as gratuities passenger was travelling in the transport vehicle. 6. We find this plea taken by the Company to be misconceived. In cases of “own damage” claims, the violation of such a policy condition is totally inconsequential unless the Company demonstrates that the violation had directly or indirectly contributed to the causing of the accident. Since the amount payable to the insured remained withheld for a pretty long time and, therefore, the Commission was absolutely correct in enhancing the compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. We also do not find the award of litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/- to be either excessive or unreasonable. 7. For all these reasons, the judgment is modified only to the extent that, while paying the amount awarded in terms of Commission’s order, the Company shall deduct a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in lieu of the salvage of the vehicle. The remainder of the Commission’s order is upheld, and the petition is accordingly disposed of. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 28.05.2025 “ARIF” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 30.05.2025