Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—In this complaint, a grievance is made by a Policy holder against the National Insurance Company for not settling his legitimate and genuine claim for un-justifiable reasons. It is alleged by the complainant that he is a Jeweller and had obtained the Block Insurance Policy dated 11.3.91 for a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs to insure the stock of gold and jewellery of his business. The complainant alleged that while travelling on 15.4.1991 by Deccan Queen Express from Pune to Bombay, the bag containing 967.600 Grams of gold ornaments, Diamond rings and other valuable articles belonging to complainant were stolen. The complainant’s partner, Omprakash and his employee Vinod Kothari were travelling in 1st class and 2nd Class respectively having 2 different seats. It is alleged that both travelled from his shop to Pune Railway Station in the same Auto and Vinod was carrying the Canvass Bag containing the aforesaid valuable articles. Vinod entered his compartment SC 5 and kept the bag on the rack above his seat. When the train reached, Shivaji Nagar Station at about 7.20 a.m. Vinod found that his bag was missing, and after enquiries with fellow passengers, he informed, Omprakash, complainant who was travelling in another compartment about the theft. However, they could not trace the canvass bag containing the valuables. The train first halted at Lonawala and both of them got down to lodge the complaint at Lonawala Railway Police Station. However, they were informed by the Lonawala Railway Police Station to lodge the complaint at Pune Railway Police Station and immediately on the same day the complaint was lodged at Railway Police Station at Pune, who started investigation. The Pune Railway Police Station registered the offence of theft ‘A’ summary on 1.8.1991 was submitted in respect of the said crime No. 51/91. The complainant notified the theft to Sarafa Association, Jhaveri Bazar, Bombay. The complainant also informed the Opposite party about the theft and about the report made to Pune Railway Police Station and thereafter submitted his claim for claiming compensation on the basis of his Insurance Policy. The opposite party appointed M/s. Kabade as Surveyor. But the said Surveyor did not submit his report to the complainant, though demanded from time to time. The complainant waited for considerable long time for issuance of the Surveyor’s report and informed the opposite party on 27.3.1993 about the settlement of the Insurance claim. In the meantime, the opposite party renewed the complainant’s Block policy for a further period from 11.3.92 to 10.3.93. However, the opposite party by its letter dated 24.5.1993 repudiated the complainant’s claim for the loss of Jewellary under exclusion clause 8(b) and violation of condition Nos. 10, 13(a) and (b). In the meantime, M/s. Kabade Surveyor’s report was available. The complainant alleged that as the opposite party spent more than 2 years to settle the complainant’s claim and thereafter rejected it for unjustifiable reasons, the complainant has filed this complaint claiming Rs. 3,50,025/- towards the value of the valuable articles and Rs. 1,42,000 for the loss of interest and also claimed Rs. 22,500/- as compensation.

2. In respect of the notice under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act dated 29.7.93, the Opposite party filed its written version and Surveyor’s report before Commission. Interalia, it is contended by the Opposite party that there is no deficiency in its service. According to opposite party the remedy for the complainant lies in the Civil Suit and therefore, the complainant be directed to present his case before the Civil Court. It is further contended that the complainant has not informed the opposite party about the theft within 24 hours as per the conditions in the policy. It is also contended that there was delay on the part of the complainant to report the incident to Insurance Company in violation of the conditions of the policy. If is