Per R.C. Gandhi, Judge (Oral) Petitioner by means of this petition seeks to quash order dated 7.9.2001 and 17.7.2001 passed by the Divisional Consumer Forum, Srinagar and the State Consumers Protection Commission, Srinagar respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1/complainant (hereinafter "the complainant") before the Divisional Consumer Forum, alongwith other brothers owned and possessed a single storey residential house at village Deegam Magabal, Shopian. It was insured by her with the appellant vide Insurance Policy No. 421002/ 3102740 for a period of one year that is from 19.8.1996 to 18.8.997. During the currency of the insurance cover the insured property was set at fire by some un-identified persons and sustained total loss. The complainant informed the appellant on 26.7.1997 and report was also lodged in the Police Station, Shopian which came to be registered as FIR No. 263/1997 under Section 436 RPC. The appellant avoided to make the payment and after some time a cheque of Rs. 26, 015/- was offered to the complainant which she refused to receive. 3. The complaint was file for deficiency of service before the Divisional Consumer Forum. The stand taken by the appellant before the Divisional Consumer Forum is that an amount of Rs. 26,015/- was offered to the complainant as compensation and she was asked to execute the discharge voucher which she has not executed and instead of that she has presented the complaint. It is also stated that the amount offered to the complainant was to the extent of her share of the loss caused to the building as the complainant was having 5th share in the insured property. The surveyor was deputed and he submitted the report on 23.6.1998 assessing the loss of Rs.1, 30, 095.00. The complainant has obtained insured policy in her name. She has also got power of attorney on behalf of the other share holders of the building, executed on 30.4.1998. 4. The learned Divisional Consumer Forum after scanning the evidence produced by the parties has come to the conclusion vide order dated 7.9.2001 that the appellant has to indemnify total loss and directed the appellant to make payment of Rs. 1,30,075/- being the loss assessed by the surveyor, with 9% interest per annum with effect from 19.08.1998 that is two months after the submission of the surveyor report. 5. 1,30,075/- being the loss assessed by the surveyor, with 9% interest per annum with effect from 19.08.1998 that is two months after the submission of the surveyor report. 5. Aggrieved of the order of the Divisional Consumer Forum, appellant preferred an appeal before the State Consumers Protection Commission, Srinagar(hereinafter "the Commission") on the ground that the petitioner has only the insurable interest in the property to the extent of her share. There are four more shareholders of the property that is the brothers of the complainant, therefore, the petitioner is only entitled to seek indemnification to the extent of her share in the building and that is the insurable interest to be indemnified by the appellant, so far as complainant is concerned. The direction of the Divisional Consumer Forum directing to indemnify the total loss is not justified. The learned Commission dismissed the appeal of the appellants observing that it is devoid of merit. But while doing so burdened the appellant to pay the compensation with 12% interest per annum if the payment is not made within four weeks, instead of 9% granted by the Divisional Consumer Forum. 6. Appellant aggrieved of the order of the Commission, has challenged it before this Court seeking to set aside the orders under challenge on the same grounds which were set out in the appeal before the Commission more particularly that the complainant is only entitled to the extent of her share in the insured building as an insurable interest. Another ground is that the Commission has enhanced the rate of interest from 9% to 12%. This direction being panel in nature and without jurisdiction requires to be set aside. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not denied that the policy has been obtained for single storey building and the premium has also been paid not to the extent of share of the complainant but of the whole building. 8. The plea of Mr. Kawoosa that the enhancement of the rate of interest by the Commission is illegal, has substance. The complainant has accepted the award of the Divisional Consumer Forum with 9% interest and the Commission thereafter was not justified to enhance the rate of interest while there is no grievance raised by the complainant either by way of appeal or otherwise. Kawoosa that the enhancement of the rate of interest by the Commission is illegal, has substance. The complainant has accepted the award of the Divisional Consumer Forum with 9% interest and the Commission thereafter was not justified to enhance the rate of interest while there is no grievance raised by the complainant either by way of appeal or otherwise. The rate of interest has been enhanced for the reason that in case the appellant do not make the payment of compensation within four weeks he will have to make the payment with 12% instead of 9%. The enhancement of interest is panel in nature. Such interest cannot be granted as pronounced by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1481, observing as under: 14. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed..." The direction of the Commission in view of the aforesaid law is set aside. The complainant shall be entitled to the interest as granted by the Divisional Consumer Forum. 9. So far as the insurable interest of the complainant is concerned, the plea of Mr. Kawoosa, learned counsel for the appellant is that though the whole building is insured with the appellant and the premium was also paid of the whole building despite that the appellant cannot be made liable to indemnify the loss caused to the building to the extent of the shares of the other co-sharers of the building. He has also submitted that there was no appeal preferred by or on behalf of the other share holders. What is required to be seen is whether insurable interest of the complainant is to the extent of the share of the property or to the extent of loss caused to the building and the policy obtained for the property. He has also submitted that there was no appeal preferred by or on behalf of the other share holders. What is required to be seen is whether insurable interest of the complainant is to the extent of the share of the property or to the extent of loss caused to the building and the policy obtained for the property. There is no doubt that there are five share holders being co-owners of the insured property. All the share holders have interest in the property. The insurable interest is to be seen from the insurance policy. If the policy is obtained by one share holder for the whole building what would be the extent of the insurable interest created in terms of the policy. 10. Now the issue for consideration and determination is whether under such circumstances the complainant, share holder at whose instance the property belonging to all the share holders has been insured, shall be entitled to receive the compensation for the whole loss or the appellant can only be held liable to indemnify the loss to the extent of the share of the complainant in the building. The appellant has devised the rate of premium taking into consideration the value of the whole building to be paid by the complainant for creating insurable interest for whole of the building which has been accepted by the appellant. 11. There are certain essential ingredients of insurable interest. There must be property capable of being insured and the said property should be the subject matter of insurance. The said property should have suffered loss, damage and the relationship between the insured and the property must be recognized by law. The insurable interest in the property is essential. The insured is immune from loss and its identity should be known before the event. Insurable interest normally arises out of ownership where the insured is the owner of the property. There can be part and joint venture of insurable interest. Any person who has partial interest in some property is entitled to insure to the extent of full value of the property, rather than just the extent of the actual interest or the share. A part or joint owner is treated as a trustee for the other owners. There can be part and joint venture of insurable interest. Any person who has partial interest in some property is entitled to insure to the extent of full value of the property, rather than just the extent of the actual interest or the share. A part or joint owner is treated as a trustee for the other owners. If the full building is insured and the claim received by the insured having part or joint interest, exceeds the financial interest of the insured, the insured holds that money as an agent for others. There is contract of insurance between the complainant and the appellant to indemnify in the event of any loss caused to the insured property. 12. The complainant has insured the interest of the whole building not of part of the building or to the extent of her share. It is permissible in law. All the owners of the property need not to create insurable interest jointly, rather joint insurable interest can be created by any one of the co-sharers as a trustee. For example, if there are forty co-sharers of a property by succession, devolution or by inheritance, the interest can be insured even by one co-sharer making liable to the appellant to the extent of the policy in respect of the property. It is not tenable argument that all the forty co-sharers have to be a party to the policy. Their interest can be insured even by one member of the family and for that full premium is required to be paid. 13. Having accepted the premium for the whole building which contain the interest of all co-sharers, the appellant at this stage cannot be heard of urging that the appellant can be made liable only to the extent of the share of the complainant. The appellant has bound down himself to indemnify the loss of the whole building and not to the extent of the share of the complainant. The interest of other co-sharers of the building has been insured and premium paid to the appellant. The appellant not only by conduct but also by virtue of the insurance policy has accepted to indemnify the loss. The interest of other co-sharers of the building has been insured and premium paid to the appellant. The appellant not only by conduct but also by virtue of the insurance policy has accepted to indemnify the loss. Therefore, it is held that the complainant is entitled to receive the amount assessed as loss caused to the building as an agent and trustee on behalf of the other co-sharers and the appellant is liable to indemnify the total loss. 14. It is noticed from the order of the Divisional Consumer Forum that the compensation has been directed to be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from 19.8.1998 that is two months after the submission of the surveyor report. It appears to be factually incorrect. The submission of the surveyor report has been recorded in the order of the Divisional Consumer Forum as on 23.6.1998 and the two months after the submission of the report comes to 24.8.1998. Therefore, the complainant shall be entitled interest to at the rate of 9% from 24.8. 1998. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition is, dismissed. No order as to costs.