M.M. Kumar, C.J.:-- 1. The instant appeal under Section 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act 1987 is directed against order dated 14.01.2013 passed by the J&K Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu (for brevity the Commission) declining the prayer of the appellant-complainant, claiming loss to the tune of more than Rs. 8.00 lacs on account of fire incident which is alleged to have occurred on 22.03.2007 on the basis of insurance cover. 2. It is appropriate to mention that the shop premises along with other contents were insured under the insurance cover from 27.09.2006 to the mid night of 26.09.2007. The appellant-complainant claimed that the premises were covered by the insurance cover but the insurance company rejected the claim on the ground that incident of fire actually took place in the residential building of the appellant-complainant where he had stocked some items of trade also but not in the shop premises which were covered by the insurance contract. The view of the commission is discernible from a reading of para 2 of the impugned order which is set out below: We have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. The abovementioned insurance policy was drawn in the name of complainants shop and stocks lying there is not denied. What is at the heart of controversy is actual place of occurrence where fire incident happened, which complainant wants us to believe was a part of the premises insured under the policy and as per respondent was the residential house of complainant, where doubtless he had stored certain part of goods but as a matter of fact, it was no part of insured premises which in terms of police was strictly the shop premises and stocks in trade stored there. Perusal of the details of insured peril while mentioning the insured as Prem Di Hatti R/o Kud reveals that on furniture and fixtures, the peril covered is Rs. 50,000/- while as remaining cover of Rs. 4.50 lac extends to stock of sweets and the raw material items, counter display deep fridger and allied items which ex facie suggests that the premises insured was the sweet shop only without complainants residential building being part thereof. Inclusion of Sales Counter and fridge in insured items demonstratively suggests the sweet shop as being insured premises and restriction of cover to furniture and fixture to Rs. Inclusion of Sales Counter and fridge in insured items demonstratively suggests the sweet shop as being insured premises and restriction of cover to furniture and fixture to Rs. 50,000/- only agitates against the plea of residential building being part of insured property as in that case the cover on this count would not only be higher but also and only a part of the insurance cover to main residential house. Moreover, there is not clear proof that residential house or anything lying therein was included in the policy cover; nor any explanation as to if stocks lying in the residential building were insured along with shop, why not the main building which ordinarily would be preferably so. 3. Mr. Amit Gupta learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has drawn our attention to the insurance policy (at page-29 of the paper book) and argued that clause 2 of the policy must be given liberal interpretation and the residential area where the fire incident took place and stock suffered damage would be deemed to be covered by insurance contract. According to the learned counsel the residential premises and the shop premises are inseparable and, therefore, insurance cover must be extended to that area. 4. Mr. Jugal Kishore Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company has, however, submitted that both the premises are separate and distinct and insurance policy would not cover an uninsured premises. According to learned counsel the commission has correctly rejected the claim of the appellant-complainant and the same cannot be reversed on any ground whatsoever. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, we are of the view that the opinion expressed by the commission does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It will be necessary to read the relevant portion of the insurance cover which is as under: (Table matter omitted.........Ed.) 6. A perusal of the insurance cover would show that under the caption Fire and Perils, furniture, fixtures, fittings, and stock in trade has been insured. Clause 2 of the policy makes it clear that all contents in the shop premises stated at the above address namely M/s. Prem Di Hatti (SBI-Kud), were to be covered by the insurance policy. There is no mention of residential premises where the fire admittedly took place. The residential premises is separate and distinct part then the shop premises. Clause 2 of the policy makes it clear that all contents in the shop premises stated at the above address namely M/s. Prem Di Hatti (SBI-Kud), were to be covered by the insurance policy. There is no mention of residential premises where the fire admittedly took place. The residential premises is separate and distinct part then the shop premises. A perusal of the police report and that of Fire and Emergency Department (Annexure B&C) would show that the fire broke out at Kud involving a four-storied residential building-cum-store/workshop belonging to one Sh. Rajinder Sharma. The loss was caused to the premises as well as to the contents due to fire, heat and smoke. Similar findings have been recorded in the police report. The report dated 26.03.2007 submitted by Sharma Surveyors (Annexure-F) also places it beyond any doubt that the fire incident took place in a nearby multi-storied building which is not covered by the insurance policy. The report of the surveyor would read thus: This has reference to our inspection of your damaged property on 24.03.2007 at Kud which burnt due to fire on 22.03.2007 at about 8 p.m., we may inform you that the abovementioned insurance policy is issued by the underwriters covering only stocks furniture, fixture lying in your shop which is located at National Highway in Kud and not affected by fire. Whereas your nearby three storey building which was being used for storage of material, manufacturing of sweets and residential purpose for your workers and which was damaged along with the contents including raw material, sweet manufacturing equipments and personal belongings of workers by fire, is not covered under the said insurance policy. The sweet stocks, raw material, furniture, fixture lying in that building are also not covered under the said insurance policy. In case, you have any other insurance policy covering your property which is damaged by fire on 22.03.2007 may be sent to us for our taking action in the matter otherwise your claim for the damaged property under the abovementioned insurance policy cannot be assessed and recommended by us to the underwriters. 7. On the basis of evidence on record, report of the surveyor and the insurance cover, we are left with no doubt that the fire incident took place in a residential area which has not been part of the insurance cover. 7. On the basis of evidence on record, report of the surveyor and the insurance cover, we are left with no doubt that the fire incident took place in a residential area which has not been part of the insurance cover. The findings recorded by the commission are unexceptionable and accordingly are upheld. 8. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.