Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President—The complainant is a registered partnership firm and had been acting as Government Contractors. Though the registered office is at Dalton-ganj, Bihar, there is an administrative office in Sector 22B, Chandigarh. The complainant undertook construction of Damsal Dam at Village Mehngarwal, District Hoshiarpur on 23.4.1987. The entire cost of the project was Rs. 1,69,05,686/- and it was to be completed within a period of 24 months from 23.4.1987. When the work was nearing completion during September, 1988 keeping in view the natural calamities such as rains and floods etc. the complainant approached New India Assurance Company, respondent No. 1 having its regional office at Chandigarh to issue a Contractors' All Risk Policy in the sum of Rs. 1,69,05,686/-. The cover note and policy are Annexures A-2 & A-3. The premium of Rs. 84.950/- was paid to the respondent on 6.7.1988 at the time the cover note was issued but the policy has been issued by the respondents on 13.8.1991. On 16.11.1990 an additional sum of Rs. 14,760/- was also deposited as the balance premium on a demand made by the respondents in respect of these issued "Contractors' All Risk Policy". The complainant was kept in dark regarding terms and conditions for a long time. There were heavy rains and flood resulting in loss to the dam/material. An intimation in this regard was sent to the respondent on 5.9.1988. The respondents deputed their Surveyors and they were expected to furnish a survey report quickly. The loss assessed by the qualified Government Engineers was alleged to be Rs. 7,94,385.25, Shri Charanjit Singh, Development Officer of the respondent Company came to the complainant alongwith a crossed cheque of Rs. 1,38,000/- dated 22.7.1991 drawn on United Commercial Bank, Mohali. The complainant informed on 22.7.1991 that the total loss assessed was in the sum of Rs. 2,38,000/-. The deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the respondents had no justification because it was Contractors' All Risk Policy. The complainant expressed his resentment and the cheque for Rs. 1,38,000/- was simply accepted under protest. The notices were issued by the complainant to the respondents on 23.7.1992. On failure of the respondent the claim put forward is as under :

(i) Rs. 7,94,385/- on account of the actual damage caused at the site and assessed by the qualified Engineers together with interest @ 24% per annum minus Rs. 1,38,000/- received as part payment under protest;

(ii) Further sum of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation on account of mental torture, physical pains etc.

2. In reply it has been averred that the complaint instituted on 2.9.1994 is barred by time. On merits, it has been averred that neither there was negligence nor any deficiency in rendering the services on the part of the Insurance Company. The insurance policy was purchased by the complainant at Mohali which is under the jurisdiction of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction. There were large number of questions of law and facts and these could not be tried here. The Forms A & B have not been placed on record to show that Shri Harvinder Pal Singh is partner of the complainant concern and competent to institute the complaint. The respondent Insurance Company appointed Shri D.S. Rattan as Surveyor & Loss Assessor and submitted the report dated 3.7.1989. It has been denied that the Engineer of the complainant assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 7,94,385.25. The total claim of the complainant was worked out to Rs. 2,38,000/- (Annexure R- 1) and out of which a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deducted on account of excess clause and balance of Rs. 1,38,000/- was paid to the complainant towards full and final settlement. The complainant was never compelled to accept this particular sum.

3. In support of the complaint there is an affidavit dated 13.7.1995 of Shri H.P.S. Anand, one of the partners of the complainant. The releva