G.D. Sharma, J. 1. The complainant in this case is Smt. Parmeshwary Sawhney who is the widow of Late Shri Bhagat Prithvi Chand Sawhney. She has one son namely, Dulari Lal Sawhney and two daughters namely, Smt. Shata Kohli and Smt. Kamlesh Kapoor. The insured property is known by the name and style of "Sawhney Mansion". According to her, the property in question has consecutively being insured by the OP for the last 35 years and is situated in the heart of Srinagar City having great commercial value. She has placed on record the particulars of 11 insurance policies obtained by her from Lucknow Branch of the OP. In a year, she resides for six months during summer season in the property in question and for remaining six months mostly she resides in Lucknow with her daughter Smt. Shanta Kohli, but at her will some times she stays with her son Dulari Lal who resides in United States of America. Smt. Kamlesh Kapoor resides in Kolkata permanently. The insurance policy in question is "Standard Fire Policy" and was obtained from Lucknow branch on 26-11-2003 and was valid upto 25-11-2004. The risk insured for the said building was in the sum of Rs. 70,68,000/-. 2. It is alleged that during the intervening night of 1st-2nd of February 2004 at about 1 O'clock the insured property was gutted in fire resulting in total loss of the building. The incident was reported in Police Station Kothibagh, Srinagar on 2-2-2004 and FIR no. 14/2004 was registered for the commission of offence falling under section 436 RPC. The claim was raised which was registered under no. 080101/01/11/03/00004. The OP deputed Mr. Vinod Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor from Delhi to assess the loss who prepared his assessment report dated 18-01-2005 and had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2723177/-. The claim was repudiated by the OP on the grounds which are reproduced hereunder: - A. You have failed to provide papers/documents asked from time to time through various letters to establish that the insured property and property shown in "Intikhab Jamabandi" provided by you to identify the property insured and to claim your ownership are the same and one property. B. Legally acceptable documents to establish that entire insured property i.e. Sawhney Mansion at Residency Road Srinagar, Kashmir, Jammu & Kashmir was owned by Bhagat Roop Chand which is said to have been now inherited by you, Smt. Shanta, Smt. Kamlesh and Sh. Dulari Lal Sawhney. C. As per Intkhab Jamabandi only half of the property at Khata No. 26, Mohalla Kothi Bagh Srinagar owned by Shri Bhagat Roop Chand. D. How you have got the property insured only in your name wrongly while it has three more co-sharers as per legal documents provided by you. You have no insurable interest on the whole property." 3. It is pleaded in the complaint that the above stated grounds were irrelevant for the rejection of the claim on the ground that property in question was being insured for the last 35 years by the complainant herself and for the whole period under insurance cover no indemnification was ever sought by the complainant. The insured building had been erected after getting the due permission from the competent authorities in the year 1969 under permission no.399. At the initial stage, when the building was got insured from the OP the building permission alongwith the plans were submitted and at no point of time, the perusal of revenue record was sought as well as the title of the property was never disputed. That the insurable interest is not the exclusive ownership right under the insurance policy. A person is interested in a thing to whom advantage may arise or prejudice may happen which may attend to it and the subject matter of insurance can be behalf of other family member. The interest has only to be pecuniary one and not the exclusive ownership. The insurance contracts are always ubremifidee contracts i.e. contracts entered in good faith and good faith is required from both the contesting parties of the contract. The insured complainant has acted in good faith for the last 35 years, but at the fag end when the claim was raised it was rejected on the irrelevant grounds. The complaint has claimed the indemnification of the total sum assured i.e. Rs. 70,65,000/- with interest and compensation for harassment to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. 4. The insured complainant has acted in good faith for the last 35 years, but at the fag end when the claim was raised it was rejected on the irrelevant grounds. The complaint has claimed the indemnification of the total sum assured i.e. Rs. 70,65,000/- with interest and compensation for harassment to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. 4. In the written version, the OP has taken the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint by pleading that there is non-joinder of necessary party as the insurance branch situated in Lukhnow of the OP has not been impleaded as a party. This was a legal requirement and the complaint is not maintainable. The delay for settling the claim has been attributed to the complainant as she had failed to provide the required documents within time and no explanation alongwith documents was provided. After enquiry it was found that the complainant had suppressed the material fact at all the relevant times when the insurance policies were being obtained in the past also as she never disclosed that she only owned 1/4th share in the insured property. The power of attorney which has produced in the proceedings and stands executed by other three co-sharers in her favour does not confer ownership right on her for the whole property. It is thus established that she has insurable interest to the extent of 1/4th share. The insurance policy was being issued in good faith at every time, but she had been willfully suppressing the material fact of her ownership. Under these circumstances, the claim has been rightly repudiated. That the surveyor Mr. Vinod Sharma has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2723177/- which he has reflected in his report dated 18-01-05 and the complainant is at the most entitled to 1/4th share from the said amount. 5. In support of the complaint, the complainant and her daughter Smt. Shanta Kohli have appeared as witnesses. They have also examined Mr. Kuldeep Chand Khurana and Mr. Prem Kumar Batra as their witnesses. The OP has not examined any witness or produced any documentary evidence. 6. The complainant in her statement has corroborated the allegation made in the complaint and has stated that in a bonafide manner she had been using her name for obtaining the insurance policies for herself and her children because the children are settled outside the state. The OP has not examined any witness or produced any documentary evidence. 6. The complainant in her statement has corroborated the allegation made in the complaint and has stated that in a bonafide manner she had been using her name for obtaining the insurance policies for herself and her children because the children are settled outside the state. She had been taking care of the property situated in Srinagar by visiting and staying during the summer season. In cross-examination, she has stated that the insured building has been constructed on the land which was owned by her late father-in-law. That after the death of her husband, the property devolved as per the law of inheritance in her favour and in favour of her three children in equal shares. That the ownership rights of the insured building have been recorded in favour of four co-sharers. Mr. Kuldeep Chand Khurana has stated that the property known as "Sawhney Mansion" situated at Residency Road, Srinagar is the property of the complainant and her three children. The building is a commercial complex having officer and shopping facilities alongwith a famous hotel known by the name of `Karima Restaurant'. The whole property is looked after by the complainant for herself and on behalf of her children. She maintains the affairs of the properties being head of the Hindu joint family and maintains the property herself. The property was devastated in a fire which broke out in the month of February 2004. Prem Kumar Batra has supported the deposition of Kuldeep Chand Khurana. Smt. Shanta Kohli, witness of the complainant has stated that complainant is her mother and Smt. Kamlesh Kapoor is her sister. She has a brother by the name of Dulari Lal. That she, her brother and sister are represented by her mother and she is their attorney holder. The copy of the power of attorney was submitted in the officer of the OP during the period when the claim was processed. That the complainant is the head of the family and represents her children to maintain and manage the whole property. She has been given every authority to deal with the property. In cross-examination, she stated that she got married in the year 1990 and she resides in Lucknow (UP) with her husband. That the complainant is the head of the family and represents her children to maintain and manage the whole property. She has been given every authority to deal with the property. In cross-examination, she stated that she got married in the year 1990 and she resides in Lucknow (UP) with her husband. The power of attorney does not confer any ownership right over the property in question but gives every right to deal with it. 7. Heard the arguments. 8. Mr. Manzoor Ali, advocate has reiterated the grounds of the complaint in his arguments and contended that there could be no concealment of material facts even remotely because the property in question was being got insured continuously from the OP for the last 35 years. That under the law of insurance, there is a clear and distinct distinction between insurable interests and the ownership right of the property which is insured. These are separate and distinguishable interests. That in the letter dated 20-10-2005 written by the complainant to OP all the objections raised for settling the claim had been explained. The complainant had even made it clear that no other co-sharer would raise any objection in case whole of the claim is paid to her. It was also made clear that in order to deal with insurance claim, the participation of one of co-sharer was required. The counsel of the OP has reiterated the defence taken in the written version that complainant had willfully concealed the ownership rights of other co-sharers and had the truth being disclosed at the very beginning that there were three other co-sharers, the insurance policy would have had been refused. This war a misrepresentation of serious nature which dis-entitles her to claim any indemnity regarding the loss occurred to the insured property. That she has also not established that the property in question which was inherited from Roop Chand had been built upon the share of his predecessor. Being an attorney holder she could not insure the property of other co-sharers. 9. We have considered the respective contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of "M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Being an attorney holder she could not insure the property of other co-sharers. 9. We have considered the respective contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of "M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/S Sham Lal Matoo" [ 2006 (II) SLJ 457 ] wherein it has been held that Contract of insurance requires insurable interests in subject matter and an insured can be said to have insurable interest in the property if he would suffer pecuniary loss due to loss of property or would attain pecuniary benefit or advantage from preservation of the insured property. Insurance of the subject matter and its ownership may not necessarily go together. Contract of insurance may be to cover the interest of other and the person insuring the interest may not be the owner of the property. In that case insurance claim resisted on the ground that insured failed to disclose that half of the house of insured house belonged to his brother. It was held that ownership dispute raised was not relevant for purposes of settling the claim, more so when there was no rival claimant. In the case of "National Insurance Co. V/S Sushila Devi Mantoo and Others" [2004 (II) SLJ 683] the single bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in its writ jurisdiction has held that "any person who has partial interest in some property is entitled to insure to the extent of full value of the property rather than to the extent of his actual interest or the share. All the co-sharers are not required to be made as party to the policy. When the insurer has received premium for the whole property from an insured the insurer is bound to indemnify the loss of the whole property and not to the extent of share of the insurer. A part or joint owner is treated as a trustee for the other co-sharers." Now, adverting to the facts of the present case, we find they are similar to the facts of the cases discussed above and their ration decidendi applies in all fours to the facts of the case in hand. Here also, the son and daughters of the complainant are not resisting the claim of the complainant. Here also, the son and daughters of the complainant are not resisting the claim of the complainant. This case is purely governed by the contract of insurance entered between the parties and there is no term or condition that in case property is not exclusively owned by the insured, the right for indemnification shall get extinguished. It has been represented on behalf of other co-sharers that property in question had been insured on their behalf because complainant had been acting as a karta of the joint Hindu family property. This mode is recognized under law. Viewed from this angle also there could be no impediment or concealment of insurable interest in the insured property. It is in no way a case of concealment of title of the insured property. 10. In view of the discussion made above, we find that the OP has without any reasonable cause repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, the complaint is accepted and as per the loss assessed by the surveyor Mr. Vinod Sharma. She is entitled to be indemnified to the extent of Rs. 27,23,177/- (Rupees twenty seven lakhs twenty three thousand one hundred and seventy seven only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from 18-1-2005 when the surveyor had submitted his report to the OP. She is also entitled to litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The complaint be consigned to records.