Mr. Justice R.C. Mankad, President — The complainant is carrying on business of gold ornaments and Jewellery at Dahod in Panchmahal district and he has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 2,49,000/- together with interest, compensation and other reliefs as prayed for in para 13 of the complaint from the National Insurance Company Ltd., opponent herein.

2. The complaint is based on the following allegations. The complainant had taken burglary policy for a total sum of Rs. 13 lakhs from the opponent and this policy was valid for the period from October 12,1993 to October 11,1994. Under the said policy, the complainant had insured stock of gold, silver ornaments etc. lying in his business premises. On the night between December, 24 and 25,1994, burglary took place in the business premises of the complainant as a result of which, according to the complainant, gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.11,77,200/- were stolen. The complainant lodged complaint with the police and the police drew up a panchnama in the course of investigation of offences registered on the basis of the complaint. The complainant also intimated the opponent about the incident and lodged claim for Rs. 11,77,200/- with it. The grievance of the complainant is that although he had supplied all the relevant information and documents to the opponent and the Surveyor appointed by it, no decision was taken by the opponent on the claim made by him.

3. It is submitted that police arrested culprits and recovered from them ornaments worth Rs. 4,28,000/-. The ornaments seized were produced before the Court of J.M.F.C. (criminal Court for short), Dahod. The complainant gave application to the criminal Court to hand over to him the ornaments which were attached or seized from the culprits. The Criminal Court passed an order dated April 26,1995 directing to deliver the ornaments to the complainant on his furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs on the condition that whenever called upon to do so he shall produce the ornaments before the Court. It is however submitted that the complainant is not in a position to use or deal with the ornaments which are handed over to him because he is required to produce them whenever the Court so directs.

4. It is submitted that the opponent has paid to the complainant Rs. 5 lakhs on account on July 12,1995 pending final decision on the claim made by him. The opponent has not given any decision on the balance of Rs. 2,49,000/- from the total claim. There was thus deficiency in service on the part to the opponent. On the above grounds, the complainant has sought to recover the following amounts from the opponent.

1. Rs. 2,49,000/- together with 18% interest;

2. Interest on Rs. 5,00,000/- paid on account;

3. Profit of Rs. 2,50,000/- on Rs. 4,28,000/-being the value of the ornaments handed over by the Court to the complainant which are required to be produced by the complainant before the Court or in the alternative interest @ 18% on the said amount;

4. Business loss of Rs. 2 lakhs;

5. Travelling expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/-; and

6. Cost of Rs. 15,000/-.

5. The opponent has resisted the claim made by the complainant by its written statement Exh. 14. It has denied the allegations of deficiency in service made by the complainant and submitted that since the dispute between the parties was only with regard to the quantum of compensation, the dispute should have been referred to arbitration under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that the opponent had not repudiated the claim made by the complainant and therefore there was no cause of action. It is further submitted that it is necessary for the complainant to lead oral and documentary evidence to prove his case and therefore the proper course for him to adopt is to approach the Civil Court.

6. The opponent has further submitted that out of the claim of Rs. 11,77,200/- made by the complainant, Rs. 5,00,000/- have already been paid to the opponent. The Crimin