Mr. V.N. Mishra, Member—The present complaint has been filed by Shri Sheo Dutta Mishra, President, Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat on behalf of Kedar Prasad Gupta, proprietor of India Alloys Company against United India Insurance Company and others for payment of compensation of Rs. 11.50 lakhs with interest at the rate of 18% for the loss and injury- suffered by the complainant due to negligence of the opposite parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are that India Alloys, a manufacturing factory, manufactures aluminium shots and notched bars and non- ferrous casting, etc. The complainant had got the materials of the Company in respect of which theft was committed insured against loss or damage due to burglary and/or house-breaking for a sum of Rs. 7.50 lakhs for which he paid a premium of Rs. 734/-. The insurance cover was for the period from 26.9.1991 to 25.9.1992. The premises was fully secured with outer doors constructed of steel gate and shutters, front, back and side windows made of wooden frame secured with iron rods. Burglary was committed in the premises at night on 26th/27th of April, 1992, in which non-ferrous castings, aluminium notched bars, electric motors and tools worth Rs. 6,48,960/- were lost. F.I.R. regarding the theft was lodged in Balidih P.S., Bokaro. The complainant just after the theft/burglary filed claim for Rs. 6,48,960/- with the Chas Branch of Insurance Company on 27.4.1992. The complainant again filed a petition on 27.5.1992 to the Officer-in-charge, Balidih to recover the stolen property. The police had registered Balidih P.S. Case No. 55/92 under Section 380, I.P.C. in respect of the aforesaid theft and submitted final report stating that the case is true but no clue was found. This was accepted by C.J.M., Bokaro. The opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to pay the claim of the complainant as a result of which the production of the factory had to be stopped after December, 1992. He had to forego the first order of 1993 worth Rs. 2.80 lakhs as he was not in a position to lift aluminum ingot orders for which were issued from Bokaro Steel Plant for conversion. He had also to forego two orders of Rs. 50,000/- each due to lack of fund. All the above losses were sustained by him due to non- finalisation of the insurance claim by the opposite parties. He suffered a loss of Rs. 11.50 lakhs in total on account of the idle time of the factory, rent of the premises, electric and telephone charges, loss of goodwill of the Company and on account of payment of stock due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

3. The opposite parties 1 and 2, on being noticed, filed written statement disputing that the insured factory does not come within the definition of consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has not filed any paper regarding the turnover of the factory before the Commission as it would have proved at the first instance that it does not come under the definition of consumer as defined in law. The complaint case has been filed by the President of Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat in a representative capacity but he has not filed any paper in support of his authority to file this complaint on behalf of a small scale industry. The opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that if the complainant had a case, it should have been filed before different Forum and not before this Commission. They further contended that the alleged burglary was committed on 26th/ 27th April, 1992 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 27.5.1992 after one month. The plea taken for the delay by the complainant according to the opposite parties 1 and 2 was that the report was sent to the Police Station through the watchman of the factory but no action was taken by the police on his report. The proprietor of the factory failed to pursue the matter and get the F.I.R. registered in time. The opposite parties therefore alleged that he had pre-planned this event to cheat the oppos