Massodi, J.:- The short controversy involved in the instant Civil 1st Miscella­neous Appeal is whether the respondent had an "insurable interest" in the property insured on the date. Insurance Policy was obtained from the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. First an overview of admitted facts. 3. The respondent, running business un­der name and style of "Pahalgam General Store" in part of a double storey building with basement at Pahalgam. Insured the building along with stock-in-trade, deep freezer, fridges, soda machines, coffee machine and other appliances for an amount of Rs. 17.00 lacs (17,00,000/-) with the appellant - In­surance Company. The insurance policy was to remain in operation with effect from 13-3-2005 to 12-3-2006. The insured building along with the stock-in-trade and other ap­pliances etc. was destroyed in fire mishap on 8-11-2005. The respondent immediately after the fire incident, laid a claim with the appellant - Insurance Company for com­pensation on account of loss to the subject matter of the insurance policy. The appel­lant - Insurance Company appointed Sh. Rajan Sharda, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss. The Surveyor assessed loss to the insured goods and the building at amount of Rs. 12,27,230/- and submited the report to the appellant - Insurance Com­pany. The claim laid by the respondent was nonetheless repudiated by the appellant -Insurance Company vide its No. SSG/1888/2006 dated 10-11-2006, on the ground that the insured building did not belong to the respondent but was owned by his sons namely, Sh. Jagjeet Singh and Narinderpal and thus respondent had no "insurable inter­est" in the subject matter of the insurance policy. 4. The respondent, aggrieved at the repu­diation of his claim by appellant - Insur­ance Company, approached J & K State Con­sumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jammu with the complaint under Section 15, J & K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (hereinafter "the Act"). The respondent pleaded that he insured double storey building with basement at Pahalgam (Kashmir), wherein the respondent earned on his business under name and style of "Pahalgam General Store" and also insured the stock-in-trade, machines and other appliances with the appellant -Insurance Company for a total amount of Rs. The respondent pleaded that he insured double storey building with basement at Pahalgam (Kashmir), wherein the respondent earned on his business under name and style of "Pahalgam General Store" and also insured the stock-in-trade, machines and other appliances with the appellant -Insurance Company for a total amount of Rs. 17.00 lacs (17,00,0007-) and obtained Insur­ance Policy bearing No. 111800/11/04/00321 valid with effect from 13-3-2005 to 12-3-2006, on payment of requisite premium to the appellant - Insurance Company; that on 8-11-2005 at around 12:15 hours, an acci­dental fire broke out in adjoining building and engulfed the subject matter of the insur­ance policy. It was further averred that Sh. Rajan Sharda, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, appointed by the Insurance Company to as­sess the loss, vide his report No. RSA/26/F/453 dated 13-11-2005 estimated the loss to the insured building stock-in-trade, appli­ances etc., because of the fire mishap at an amount of Rs. 12,27,230/-. The respondent maintained that he had an "insurable inter­est" in the subject matter of the insurance policy and was entitled to receive loss as­sessed by Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor ap­pointed by the appellant - Insurance Com­pany and also Rs. 50,000/- on account of ha­rassment and litigation expenses. The respon­dent pleaded that there was "deficiency" in service by the appellant - Insurance Com­pany and the respondent had a cause to file the complaint. 5. The appellant - Insurance Company, in its objections to the complaint, reiterated that the respondent did not have an "insur­able interest" in the subject matter of insurancy policy and thus was not compe­tent to claim much less receive compensa­tion from the appellant - Insurance Com­pany on account of loss suffered by insured building. The appellant - Insurance Com­pany insisted that mere insurance of the prop­erty, at the instance of the respondent or ap­pointment of Surveyer-cum-Loss Assessor to assess the loss, would not give right to re­spondent to raise his claim for indemnifica­tion in absence of "insurable interest" in the subject matter of the Insurance Policy. The appellant - Insurance Company disputed that respondent putforth any documentary evidence to show that he had been authorised by his sons namely, Jagjeet Singh and Narinderpal Singh to insure the building in question on their behalf. 6. The State Commission rejecting the objections raised by the appellant. The appellant - Insurance Company disputed that respondent putforth any documentary evidence to show that he had been authorised by his sons namely, Jagjeet Singh and Narinderpal Singh to insure the building in question on their behalf. 6. The State Commission rejecting the objections raised by the appellant. Insurance Company to the respondent's complaint, held that repudiation of genuine claim by the ap­pellant - Insurance Company as illegal ex­ercise of lawful authority on its part amount­ing to denial of service to the respondent. The Commission opined that negligence on the part of Insurance Company amounted to deficiency in service. The State Commission accordingly allowed the complaint and di­rected appellant - Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 12,27,230/- to respon­dent along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of loss till its final pay­ment. The State Commission also allowed litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of respondent. 7. The State Commission judgment is questioned in present Civil Miscellaneous 1st Appeal on the ground that the State Com­mission has not applied his mind to the case set up by the appellant - Insurance Com­pany and fail to appreciate that the respon­dent did not have an "insurable interest" in the subject mater of insurance policy and thus not entitled to lay a claim for compensation on account of loss to insured property. The impugned judgment is said to suffer from non application of mind and to be based on sur­mises and conjectures. 8. We have gone through the memoran­dum of appeal as well as the record received from State Consumer Commission, Jammu. 9. Insurance is a device to make possible equitable distribution of financial losses suf­fered by a person (insured) by compensating him from the fund build up by the contribu­tion (premium) from others who like the per­son suffering the loss opt for such device. It spreads the risk of loss making use of the contribution or premium made by each mem­ber of the group to which, the risk or loss is spread over. In other words, it is a contrac­tual service obtained from the insurer for a "price called the premium. The amount of pre­mium to be paid obviously depends on the nature of the risk(s) covered. A fire insur­ance contract is a specie of insurance con­tract where principle object is to indemnify the insured against loss or damage occa­sioned by fire. In other words, it is a contrac­tual service obtained from the insurer for a "price called the premium. The amount of pre­mium to be paid obviously depends on the nature of the risk(s) covered. A fire insur­ance contract is a specie of insurance con­tract where principle object is to indemnify the insured against loss or damage occa­sioned by fire. The extent of insurance li­ability is limited by the sum assured and not by the extent of the loss or damage. The in­surer has no interest in the safety of the in­sured property apart from his liability under the fire insurance contract. For a contract of insurance - fire insurance or otherwise, it is necessary that the insured must have an "insurable interest" in the property insured. An insurance contract having all the at­tributes of a valid contract, like competence of contracting parties to enter into contract presence of consent-free from coercion, un­due influence, or misrepresentation, as also a lawful consideration would not make a con­tract of insurance valid unless and until the insured has an "insurable interest" in the sub­ject matter of the insurance. The reason, be­ing that an insurance contract entered into by a person having no interest in the insured property would amount to "agreement by way of wager" and thus void in terms of Sec­tion 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir Contract Act, 1977 Smvt. 10. It is well settled that a person who is so interested in a property as to have benefit from its existence and to be prejudiced by its destructions has an "insurable interest" in that property and thus can insure the prop­erty. Insurable interest and ownership of the insured property may not go hand in hand and the property may be insured by a person other than the owner provided such a person has an "insurable interest" in the property. In other words, "insurable interest" is not lim­ited to the absolute ownership of the prop­erty and may be available to a person other than the absolute owner - a person have only partial, limited, or equitable right. To illustrate a joint owner, mortgagor, mort­gagee, trustee, lessee, bailee, beneficiary or a person in lawful possession of a property have an "insurable interest" in such property. 11. To illustrate a joint owner, mortgagor, mort­gagee, trustee, lessee, bailee, beneficiary or a person in lawful possession of a property have an "insurable interest" in such property. 11. The Supreme Court in Contship Con­tainer Lines Ltd. v. D. K. Lall & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1704 , while dealing with true pur­port of expression "insurable interest" though in the context of Marine Insurance referred to following from Halsbury's Laws of En­gland. Fourth Edition ".....................It may be stated as a gen­eral principle that to constitute an insurable interest it must be an interest such that the peril would by its proximate effect cause damage to the assured, that is to say cause him to lose a benefit or incur a liability." Lawrence, J. in Lucena v. Craufurd (1806) 2 Bos & PNR 269, has defined "insurable interest", (also quoted with approval in Contship Container Lines Ltd. case (supra)) in following words :- "A man is interested in a thing to whom advantage may arise or prejudice happen from the circumstances which may attend it.... and whom it importeth that its condi­tion as to safety or other quality should con­tinue. Interest does not necessarily imply a right to the whole or part of the thing, nor necessarily and exclusively that which may be the subject of privation, but he having some relation to or concerning the subject of the insurance; which relation or concern by the happening of the perils insured against may be so effected as to produce a damage, determent or prejudice to the person insur­ing. And where a man is so circumstanced with respect to matters exposed to certain risks and dangers as to have a moral certainty of advantage or benefit but for those risks and dangers, he may be said to be interested in the safety of the thing. To be interested in the preservation of a thing is to be so cir­cumstanced with respect to it as to have ben­efit from its existence, prejudice from its destruction." The litmus test, thus, as laid down in "United India Insurance Company v. Mrs. Parmeshwari Sawhney", AIR 2010 Jammu and Kashmir 138", to determine whether a person has an "insurable interest" in the in­sured property is to see whether the person claiming "insurable interest" would suffer pecuniary loss in the event of loss to prop­erty and would draw benefit from preserva­tion of the insured property. 12. Parmeshwari Sawhney", AIR 2010 Jammu and Kashmir 138", to determine whether a person has an "insurable interest" in the in­sured property is to see whether the person claiming "insurable interest" would suffer pecuniary loss in the event of loss to prop­erty and would draw benefit from preserva­tion of the insured property. 12. In the present case, the insured though not an absolute owner of the insured prop­erty, is not a stranger to the property. The insured is the father of the recorded owners of the property and also in lawful possession of the insured building running his business in part of the building and using other part of the building for residential purposes along with his two sons - recorded owners of the building. The respondent has not only insured the building owned by his two sons but also stock-in-trade, deep freezer, fridges, soda machines, coffee machine and other appli­ance admittedly owned by him, with the ap­pellant - Insurance company. 13. In the circumstances the respondent is not only a lessee or tenant of the property and in its lawful possession but also a trustee of the property on behalf of his two sons, i.e. owners of the property. Considering the in­terest of the respondent in the insured prop­erty on the touchstone of settled legal prin­ciples, it is more than evident that the respon­dent as a lessee/person in lawful possession of insured building, running business in part of insured building and using other part of the building, as his residence and that of his family including the recorded owner and also as a "trustee", would be exposed to pecuni­ary loss in the event of loss to the property and would be benefitted by preservation of the insured property. 14. It further needs to be pointed out that the respondent did not make any misrepre­sentation or concealment as regards owner­ship of the property at the time, the respon­dent obtained insurance policy in question, from the appellant - Insurance Company. The respondent made an honest declaration that the insured building was in the name of his sons namely - Sh. Jagjeet Singh and Narinderpal and that he was insuring the building on their behalf as also his merchan­dise and other appliances. Sh. The respondent made an honest declaration that the insured building was in the name of his sons namely - Sh. Jagjeet Singh and Narinderpal and that he was insuring the building on their behalf as also his merchan­dise and other appliances. Sh. Jagjeet Singh and Narinderpal, the recorded owners of the building in their depositions before the State Consumer Commission took the stand that the property was purchased by the respon­dent out of his own funds in their name and that they were living in a joint, undivided family with the respondent as head of the family. 15. Sr. H. S. Risam, Deputy Manager of the appellant - Insurance Company extended support to the case set up by the respondent before the State Commission, that the respon­dent along with his two sons, is residing in the insured building, in a part whereof the re­spondent is also running his business under the name and style of "Pahalgam General Store". Sh. H. S. Risam, Deputy Manager of the appellant - Insurance Company further admitted that the respondent at the time of obtaining the insurance policy, informed the appellant -- Insurance Company that the building was in the name of his two sons and the appellant - Insurance Company fully aware of this fact, accepted the premium from the respondent and agreed to insure the prop­erty. 16. The evidence brought on the file by the parties thus it can be said reinforces the respondent's claim that respondent had an "insurable interest" in the insured building. 17. The plea that the respondent is not a "consumer" and a "complainant" within the meaning of Sections 2(d), 2 (b) of J & K Con­sumer Protection Act, 1987; that there was no "deficiency" in service provided by the appel­lant - Insurance Company in terms of Sec­tion 2 (g) of the J & K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 and the the complaint under Section 15, J & K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 was no maintainable, is bereft of any merit. 18. The "insured" is a person who hires services from the Insurance Company or the "insurer" for a consideration called "pre­mium" paid by the "insured" at the com­mencement of the insurance contract. The "insured" thus is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d)(i) and "complain­ant" within the meaning of Section 2(b)(i) of the Act. 18. The "insured" is a person who hires services from the Insurance Company or the "insurer" for a consideration called "pre­mium" paid by the "insured" at the com­mencement of the insurance contract. The "insured" thus is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d)(i) and "complain­ant" within the meaning of Section 2(b)(i) of the Act. The definition of "service" ap­pearing under Section 2 (o) expressly brings the insurance service within its fold. The re­pudiation of insurance claim by the Insur­ance Company after fair, thorough and full-fledged enquiry, on a valid ground and in good faith, may not amount to "deficiency" in service leaving only option with the ag­grieved to approach the Civil Court. There is, however, no universally applicable prin­ciple that whenever the claim is repudiated by the Insurance Company, consumer redressal mechanism, envisaged under the Act, cannot be pressed into service by the "insured" and a complaint lodged with the Divisional Forum or State Consumer Dis­putes Redressal Forum, as the case may be. In case. Divisional Forum or State Commis­sion is held to have no jurisdiction to enter­tain a complaint, merely because the insur­ance claim is repudiated by the "insurer", the "insured" in almost all the cases involving repudiation of insurance claim irrespective of validity of the decision would be deprived of a hassle free, cost and speedy redressal mechanism available under theAct. Such a conclusion, it needs no emphasis, would run contrary to object, spirit and scheme of the Act. 19. If follows that mere repudiation of the insurance claim does not strip the Divisional Forum or the State Commission of jurisdic­tion to see whether the repudiation was made in good faith on valid and justifiable grounds and whether there was deficiency in service. In other words, repudiation of insurance claim, without an in-depth, objective and transparent enquiry, on flimsy, mala fide and legally untenable grounds would amount to "deficiency" in service and entitle the "in­sured" to file a complaint under the Act. In the present case, the appellant - Insurance Company unmindful of, its conduct, while accepting the insurance proposal from the respondent for insurance of the building in question and stock-in-trade, appliances etc. and the fact that to its knowledge, the respon­dent had an "insurable interest" in the insured building wriggled out of its obligation under the insurance contract on legally and factu­ally untenable grounds. and the fact that to its knowledge, the respon­dent had an "insurable interest" in the insured building wriggled out of its obligation under the insurance contract on legally and factu­ally untenable grounds. There was, thus, "de­ficiency" in service on part of the appellant - Insurance Company and the State Com­mission rightly entertained and dealt with the complaint filed by the respondent. 20. For the reason discussed, the appeal is held merit less and dismissed along with CMP(s). The State Commission judgment dated 3-12-2009 is upheld, without any or­der as to cost. Appeal dismissed.