JUDGMENT : Per Chowdhary, J 1. Appellant-Insurance Company, through the medium of this Appeal preferred under the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumers Protection Act 1987, has assailed the order dated 16.05.2018 (for short ‘impugned order’) passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Srinagar (for short ‘Commission’), whereby the respondent herein, who had filed the complaint, had been granted an amount of Rs.8,66,689/- along-with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of Compliant No. 169/2017. 2. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the respondent-complainant had miserably failed to submit any documentary evidence either before the Surveyor or to the appellant- Insurance Company with regard to his claim; that the appellant- Company had filed detailed written version to the complaint pleading that in the event of failure on the part of the respondent to submit the proof of ownership documents, the appellant-Company cannot be made liable; that the respondent-complainant instead of substantiating the proof as required from him filed a complaint before the Commission and the learned Commission instead of asking for the original so-called ‘Leave and License Agreement’ relied upon the photocopy and passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside as the photocopy has no admissible evidence under the Evidence Act; that the complaint was decided by the learned Commission without asking for evidence from the parties, which is primary and mandatory requirement under the J&K Consumers Protection Act; finally it was prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commission in Complaint No. 169/2017 titled ‘Baldev Singh Vs. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd’. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, while reiterating the grounds taken in the memorandum of Appeal, vehemently argued that the respondent-complainant had not substantiated his claim with regard to the Policy No.111401/48/14/32/00000/329, whereby the appellant-Company had insured his house. He further argued that the appellant could not settle the claim of the respondent for the reason that he had failed to produce any document with regard to ownership/title of his house and instead of substantiating his claim by providing proof, the respondent filed the complaint in terms of the J&K Consumers Protection Act before the learned Commission, wherein the appellant-Company as respondent, had denied its liability for the aforesaid reasons. However, the learned Commission on production of the photocopy of some ‘Leave and License Agreement’ executed in favour of the respondent which was not admissible evidence’ relied upon the same and without asking the parties to lead evidence, decided the complaint and an amount of Rs. 8,66,689/- was granted, in favour of the respondent along-with the interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint. He prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Commission has not been passed in accordance with law and is required to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, on the other hand, vehemently argued that the respondent, who was originally the resident of Punjab, had taken the land on the strength of ‘Leave and Lease’ document from the owner of the land and raised a house thereon which was insured with the appellant Company vide policy No. No.111401/48/14/32/00000/329, valid w.e.f., 17.05.2014 to 16.05.2015, for an insured sum of Rs. 21.00 lacs for the building and Rs.3.00 lacs for the household items. He has further argued that in the devastating floods of September 2014, the house of the respondent located at Indra Nagar Srinagar was ravished and it had submerged in the flood waters; and that on informing the appellant- Insurance Company, Surveyor was deputed, who assessed the loss caused to his property to the tune of Rs.6,41,689/- for the building and Rs.2,25,000/- for the household goods. In nutshell after making the requisite deductions, the loss was assessed at Rs.8,66,689/-; that on refusal by the appellant-Insurance Company, he had produced electricity and telephone bills besides ‘Leave and License Agreement’ in support of his claim for insurable interest with the insurer. His claim was, however, repudiated, on the ground that he had no insurable interest in the property as he had failed to establish his ownership in the property. He further argued that the learned Commission has rightly accepted his insurable interest in the insured property on the basis of the ‘Leave and License Agreement, with the owner of the land, as it was none of the business of the insurer to ask for the ownership of the property insured with it. He has finally prayed that the learned Commission had granted the compensation for the loss assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the Company vide impugned order, which does not call for the interference in this Appeal. 5. He has finally prayed that the learned Commission had granted the compensation for the loss assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the Company vide impugned order, which does not call for the interference in this Appeal. 5. Heard, perused and considered. 6. Respondent-Baldev Singh, resident of Chandigarh, claimed to have taken the land on the basis of ‘Leave and License Agreement’ executed on 04.05.2003 from one Mohammad Ramzan Wani with regard to a piece of land at Indra Nagar Srinagar. He claims to have constructed the house on the land for his personal use and also claimed to have insured the house and household items with the appellant-Insurance Company vide Insurance Police No. No.111401/48/14/32/00000/329 w.e.f., 17.05.2014 to 16.05.2015. Since the house and household insured, suffered damages in the devastating floods of September 2014, as such, he laid the claim for compensation for the loss suffered by him due to floods. 7. The appellant Insurance Company, with whom the property of the respondent had been insured, asked the respondent for certain documents to substantiate his ownership with regard to the house, however, respondent besides electricity and telephone bills, had produced the ‘Leave and License Agreement’ but the insurer did not accept the ‘Leave and License Agreement’ document to substantiate his title/ownership of the property in question and repudiated the claim. 8. Respondent filed a complaint before the learned Commission and the appellant as a respondent, had filed objections to the complaint taking the same stand that the respondent had failed to substantiate his title/ownership over the insured property. Learned Commission, after considering the objections of the appellant -Insurance Company went ahead and relied upon the photocopy of the ‘Leave and License Agreement’ executed in favour of the respondent by the land owner and further holding that since the insurer had not contested the report of the Surveyor with regard to the loss assessed, the complaint was disposed of granting compensation as assessed by the Surveyor in favour of the respondent. 9. 9. It is borne out from the pleadings and the impugned order that the appellant-Insurance Company had contested the claim, therefore, it was incumbent and obligatory on the learned Commission to ask for the evidence from both the sides in terms of Section 11 of the J&K Consumers Protection Act 1987, which inter alia provides in clause- (b) of sub section-(1) that where the opposite party on receipt of the complaint referred to him under clause-(a) denies or disputes the allegations in the complaint or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time, shall proceed to settle the dispute in the manner specified. Though Section 11 deals with the procedure to be followed by the District Commission on receipt of complaint, however, in terms of Section 16, the same procedure as provided in Section 10 and 11 and under the Rules, has to be adopted by the learned State Commission with such modification as may be necessary. Learned Commission after recording that the opposite party had disputed the claim laid by the complainant on the basis of lack of proof with regard to ownership/title of the insured house, had not asked the parties to lead evidence. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in ‘CIMA No. 64/2015, CIMA No. 94/2015 and CIMA No. 100/2015 decided on 29.07.2015’ observed, ‘that the State Commission, without following the procedure as prescribed under Section 11 & 16 of the J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987, with reference to providing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence as the appellants had denied and disputed the claim, and decided the case without even recording any reason’, set aside the impugned awards made by the Commission and remanded the matters back to the State Commission for fresh consideration. 11. In our considered opinion the procedure adopted by the Commission was not permissible in view of the statutory provisions of Section 11 read with Section 16 of the J&K Consumers Protection Act 1987. The Commission has thus, misdirected itself to decide the case without asking the parties to lead evidence particularly in the face of the dispute raised by the opposite party. In this backdrop of the matter the impugned award/order is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Commission has thus, misdirected itself to decide the case without asking the parties to lead evidence particularly in the face of the dispute raised by the opposite party. In this backdrop of the matter the impugned award/order is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The case is remanded back with a direction to the learned Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the procedure regarding leading evidence and after hearing both the sides. The release of compensation shall be subject to final outcome of the compliant before the Commission. 12. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the J&K Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for further orders on 01.09.2023. Registry shall forward the Commission, record if received along-with a copy of this judgment for information and compliance.