JUDGMENT : Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. CIMA No. 13/2014 1. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. On earlier occasions also nobody was present on behalf of the appellant. It is evident that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. CIMA No. 32/2014 This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the Order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"). The appellant/Insurance Company is aggrieved by the said order primarily on two counts. The first being that, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Commission has erred in concluding that there were repeated deduction on account of dead stocks, whereas in fact there was only a deductions once. The second point that has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the Commission has without any reason, disallowed the deduction on account of the salvage value of 10%. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent's/complaint's stock in trade was insured under Policy No. 11-71411 for Rs. 15.00 lacs. It is also an admitted position that a fire had broken out during the night intervening 10th/11th March, 2004. It is also an admitted position that the said stocks were lodged in the premises where the said fire had broken out and that the building was a three storeyed belonging to one G.M. Wani situated at Gadkocha, Srinagar. The insurance Company appointed the surveyor to assess the loss. After visiting the premises on 11.03.2014, the surveyor submitted a report under Reference No. 5522/TR325/NIA/2004. As per the surveyor's report, he assessed the adequacy of insurance in the following manner:- "ADEQUACY OF INSURANCE: In order to ascertain the value at risk of the stocks we have added to the value of the sound stocks the value of damaged stocks, the details of which are given here under. It is in place to mention here that the details of damaged stocks and sound stocks were physically taken by us the time of visits of the insured premises." “Value of damaged stocks (as per Annexure-A) Rs.537,426.00 Value of sound stocks (as per Annexure-B) Rs.385,358.00 Rs.922,784.00 Less : 10% dead stocks Rs.92,278.40 Therefore, value at risk Rs.830,505.60 Sum insured available Rs.1,500,000.00 Coverage, therefore Adequate” 3. On finding that the value at risk was Rs. On finding that the value at risk was Rs. 8,30,505.60 and the sum insured available was Rs. 15.00 lacs, the surveyor noted that the coverage was adequate. 4. Thereafter the surveyor, as per his report, made an assessment of loss. The details of the assessment were as under:- “Value of damaged stocks (as per Annexure-A) Rs.537,426.00 Less : 10% dead stocks Rs.53,742.60 Rs.483,683.40 Less: Salvage value@ 10% Rs.48,368.34 Rs.435,315.06 Less : Policy excess Rs.10,000.00 Therefore, net loss assessed Rs.425,315.06” 5. From the above it is, first of all, to be noticed that the computation of adequacy of insurance is different from the computation of assessment of loss. The Commission while examining the matter has mistaken the computation for adequacy of the insurance as a part of the computation for assessment of loss and that is why the Commission came to the conclusion, albeit erroneous, that there were repeated deductions on account of dead stocks @ 10%. It is evident from the assessment of loss as extracted above that the value of dead stocks was Rs. 5,37,426/-. This amount has been reduced by the value of dead stocks @ 10% by an amount of Rs. 53,742.60 resulting in the figure of Rs. 4,83,683.40. 6. After this, the surveyor also deducted an amount of Rs. 48,368.34 representing 10% of the said figure of Rs. 4,83,683.40 as the salvage value of the damaged stocks. The Commission has once again erred in concluding that this deduction could not be made, inasmuch, the surveyor had already noted that the value of undamaged stocks was to the extent of Rs. 3,85,358. Here, again, the State Commission has gone completely wrong, inasmuch as, there cannot be any question of determining the salvage value in respect of undamaged stocks. The salvage value is only to be determined in respect of damaged stocks. Since the surveyor had assessed the value of damaged stocks after removing the value of dead stocks included therein at Rs. 48,368.34, he committed no error in further deducting 10% of that amount as representing the salvage value of damaged stocks. There is no dispute with regard to the deduction on account of policy access. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commission, as pointed out above, has erred in not allowing the deduction on account of dead stocks and salvage value and in not accepting the loss assessed by the surveyor at Rs. 4,25,315.06. There is no dispute with regard to the deduction on account of policy access. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commission, as pointed out above, has erred in not allowing the deduction on account of dead stocks and salvage value and in not accepting the loss assessed by the surveyor at Rs. 4,25,315.06. Therefore, the insured was only entitled to the sum of Rs. 4,25,315.06 along with interest @ 4% per annum with effect from January, 2005 plus Rs. 5000/- as litigation charges. The amount payable would be adjusted against the amount already withdrawn by the insured. Furthermore we are informed that an amount of Rs. 1,80,750/- is lying deposited with the State Commission after the impugned order was passed. If any amount remains payable to the insured, it shall be deducted from the amount deposited with the State Commission. The balance along with any interest accrued thereon shall be released in favour of the Insurance Company. The balance amount with accrued interest thereon, if any, deposited by the appellant in this Court shall be released to the appellant. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. The decision of the State Commission stands modified by this order.