Dr. Sunil Kanti Kar, Member—It is admitted that there were two valid insurance policies bearing Nos. 130801/57/1/00604/87 and 130801/57/31/00030/90 valid upto 14.10.91. It is not disputed that during the validity of insurance policy a devastating fire broke out on 16.12.90 in the insured shop room. The complainant lodged a claim for Rs. 5,48,545/- which was disputed by the Insurance Company and it settled the claim at Rs. 1,13,102/- as against said claim of Rs. 5,48,545/-. The complainant wrote to different authorities for reconsideration of the claim amount as the settlement of the claim at Rs. 1,13,012/- is very meagre as against claim of Rs. 5,48,545/- made by the complainant but all the efforts of the complainant proved futile. As a result, the complainant filed the present complaint before this Commission claiming Rs. 5,48,545/- against the loss suffered by the devastating fire breaking out in the medical shop room of the complainant and further prayed for award of Rs. 2,500/- per month towards loss of profits from January, 1991 till the date of payment together with interest charged by the opposite party No. 4/Bank and for compensation for loss of goodwill and Rs. 15,000/- for legal expenses etc.

2. The contention of the opposite party/ Insurance Company is that the complaint petition is not maintainable before the State Commission, West Bengal for lacking in jurisdiction inasmuch that none of the opposite parties resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the State of West Bengal at the time of institution of the complaint and that the question of acquiesce by any of the opposite parties or of granting permission of leave by the learned State Commission to institute the complaint cannot arise in this case. It is further alleged that the contract of Insurance was entered into at Shillong and that the properties insured under the insurance policy were also at Shillong and that the finance given by the State Bank of India is at Shillong and that the fire on 17.12.90 also took place at Shillong, so no part of cause of action of the case arose within jurisdiction of the State Commission, West Bengal. The Insurance Company further contended that the Insurance Policy embarks a condition of arbitration as per provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 provided it would not be referred to arbitration if the Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of policy and provided further that it is hereby expressly stipulated and declared the it shall be condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this policy that the award by such Arbitrator or Arbitrators Umpire of the amount of the loss or damage shall be first obtained and provided further that it is hereby expressly agreed and declared that if the Company disclaim liability to the insured for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within 12 calendar months from the date of such disclaimer have been made the subject matter of the suit in a Court of Law, then the claim for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder and in the premises aforesaid no cause of action can be alleged to have arisen for the alleged dispute in terms of arbitration agreement, particularly, in view of the letter dated 29.6.92 written by the complainant to the insurer/opposite party No. 2. The Insurance Company further contended that by virtue of an agreed Bank claim the insured has declared its nominee i.e. the State Bank of India/the opposite party No. 4 for settlement and acceptance of the claim, accordingly the Bank, the opposite party No. 4 being nominee of the insured duly accepted of the settlement of the Insurance Company and thereafter there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and the complaint petition filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected.

3. On the point of territorial jurisdiction, the complainant added a branch office of the Insurance Company a