National Insurance Company Limited vs Nisar Ahmad on 14 July, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

National Insurance Company Limited vs Nisar Ahmad on 14 July, 2025

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                  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,                   ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
 Through its, Sr. Divisional Manager,
 Division Office, Srinagar.


 Through: Mr. Aatir Javed Kawoosa, Advocate.
                                            Vs.
 1. Nisar Ahmad                                                ...Respondent(s)
 2. Rifat
 Residents of Umerabad Zainkoot Srinagar.
 Through: None.
 CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
                                        ORDER

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.