JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.09.2017, passed by J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, in the case titled Syed Fazal Rehman vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another. In terms of the order impugned, learned Commission has awarded an amount of Rs. 9,64,395/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fire, in favour of the claimant-respondent. 2. Double storeyed shopping complex located at Saidpora Tehsil Uri, Baramulla, which belonged to respondent, gutted in fire during the intervening night of 2nd/3rd of November, 2011. Regarding incident, FIR has been lodged on 02.11.2011 in Police State, Uri. The property was insured against the risk under Policy No. 111/406/11/10/11/00000727 for an amount of Rs. 14.00 lac, therefore, claim was raised. The surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company visited the spot on 12.11.2011 and submitted his report on 02.03.2012. As per report of the surveyor, the building was double storeyed constructed in the year 2006. It had three shops each in the ground floor and first floor, as such, was used for commercial purposes. The plinth area of the insured building was 396 sq. ft. As per report of the surveyor, it was a case of total loss. The surveyor had assessed the value of the building by taking into consideration the area of the building as 396 sq. ft. multiplied by Rs. 1051, the rate approved by the Government. Then after necessary deductions, the net value of the building had been assessed as Rs. 3,61,302/-. 3. The Insurance Company had tried to raise an issue that the father's name of the insured was not correct i.e. he is shown son of Syed Rehman when he is son of Syed Ab. Hassan. To project such ground is untenable. When the position of building being owned by the respondent is not disputed, insurance cover is not disputed and receipt of premium is not disputed, it would be a technical objection so as to add to the agony of the sufferer which the Insurance Company has attempted to do without success. Learned Commission has rightly observed that the error in the parentage is, in fact, fault of the agent of the Insurance Company who, while insuring the property, has not correctly recorded the name. Learned Commission has rightly observed that the error in the parentage is, in fact, fault of the agent of the Insurance Company who, while insuring the property, has not correctly recorded the name. Even though it is not correctly reflected, same cannot be taken as a valid defence. 4. The surveyor in his report has clearly mentioned that the plinth area of the ground floor is 396 sq. ft. to be multiplied by Rs. 1051 i.e. the rate prescribed by the Government per sq. ft. Then has also added electric fitting and other miscellaneous items assessed at Rs. 50,000. Finally, the value of the damage has been assessed as Rs. 3,61,302, on which depreciation of 1.5% for the period of 15 years has been applied and the net loss has been worked out as Rs. 3,07,859.09. Finally, damage has been assessed at Rs. 2.47 lacs. 5. Learned Commission has rightly observed that the damage has been worked out only for the ground floor, nothing has been said about first floor. It has been mentioned in the order impugned that the contractor, who had constructed the building, while appearing as a witness has stated that the plinth area of the building was 15 x 33 = 495 sq. ft. the area of the shops was 13 x 9 and height was 8.5 ft. and the walls of the shops were build in cement plaster. 6. On the basis of evidence, learned Commission has accepted the version of the complainant that the plinth area is 490 sq. ft. Taking both ground floor and first floor, the total area would be 990 sq. ft. Applying the rate fixed by the Government @ 1051 per sq. ft. loss to the insured building is Rs. 10,40,490 plus Rs. 50,000/- as assessed for electricity fittings and other miscellaneous items, therefore, the net loss has been worked out as Rs. 10,90,490. After applying the deduction formula, the amount payable has been worked out as Rs. 9,64,395. Finally, the Commission has awarded an amount of Rs. 9,64,395/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fire. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company was pointedly asked to show as to what is the wrong fact, error of law or illegality in the order passed by the Commission, he repeated the same arguments as were projected before the Commission. 8. 9,64,395/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fire. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company was pointedly asked to show as to what is the wrong fact, error of law or illegality in the order passed by the Commission, he repeated the same arguments as were projected before the Commission. 8. The Commission has appreciated the entire case in its right perspective. No exception can be taken to the same. After all property was insured for an amount of Rs. 14.00 lacs and premium has been paid for the same amount. The property has gutted in the fire. It has been the case of total loss. To work out the loss at Rs. 2.47 lacs appears to be with some calculation so as to defeat the very object of insurance coverage. Such approach of the insurance company cannot be appreciated. When a sufferer is before them, his mental agony is not to be compounded by raising unfounded pleas which are not only disadvantageous to the claimant but disadvantageous to the company itself because now the company has to pay the amount along with interest. 9. Approach of the insurance company is always expected to be reasonable but in the instant case, quite unreasonably, insurance company had restricted the claim of the respondent as against the insured amount of Rs. 14.00 lacs just to Rs. 2.47 lacs on the basis of miscalculation made by the surveyor while preparing his report. Learned Commission has rightly taken note of the report of the surveyor and has drawn conclusions which are consistent with factual position, the policy of insurance and the object of insurance. 10. No ground whatsoever has been made out which would persuade us to interfere with the order impugned, therefore, appeal being without merit is dismissed. 11. The statutory amount deposited in the Registry be released in favour of the respondent. 12. Copy of the order be sent to the Commission for information.