The duty of the insured to provide elaborate evidence and the requirement of immediate notice of theft under the Consumer Protection Act were central to the court's decision.

Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an original complaint by Mr. Aan Singh Thapa, R/o Village Vikas Samiti, Ward No. 8, Chhapani, Darchula, Nepal against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for recovery of Rs. 6,12,631/-, the loss suffered by the complainant due to theft in his shop, which was insured with the opposite parties along with interest.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is carrying on business of selling wine, etc in Village Vikas Samiti, Ward No. 8, Chhapani, Darchula, Nepal. The complainant has got a shopkeepers’ insurance policy on 24th August, 2001 from the Kashipur Office of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite parties received a sum of Rs. 6,300/- as premium and the cover note was issued on 24.8.2001. On 30.8.2001 the shopkeepers’ insurance policy was issued. The complainant has insured his shop against burglary and house-breaking as well for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- besides insurance for other purposes. In the night of 1.9.2001 some unknown people had broken into the shop of the complainant and had sabotaged and stolen the wine and fridge lying in the shop worth Rs. 9,63,510/- and cash amounting to Rs. 16,700/-. The details of the loss are given in Annexure 1 of the complaint. It is said that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 9,80,210/- in Nepal currency, equivalent to Rs. 6,12,631/- in the Indian Currency.The police complaint was lodged and the complainant has also informed the Kashipur Branch of the opposite party No.1 on telephone and information was given to the opposite party in writing on 17.9.2001 by registered post. There was no response. No surveyor was sent. On 22.10.2001 the complainant issued a legal notice through his Counsel calling the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 6,12,631.125/-. The opposite parties issued for the first time reply on 1.12.2001 that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. It was informed that the insurance company has cancelled the policy from the very beginning. Intimation of the cancellation of the policy was never given to the complainant, nor the complainant ever knew about and cancellation. The opposite parties have got no right to cancel the policy unilaterally ex parte. The premium has never been refunded to the complainant.

3. The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the complainant is a resident of Nepal. The business place of the complainant is in Nepal. The alleged insurance place is in Nepal. The alleged accident took place in Nepal. The complainant alleged that the has suffered loss in Nepal, therefore, the Consumer Protection Act shall not apply. It is alleged that the services are in respect of commercial purposes, hence the Consumer Protection Act shall not apply. The valuation of the complanant is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-, therefore the complaint shall not lie before the State Commission. It is further alleged that the policy has been cancelled from the date of inception. The opposite party has returned the premium along with intimation of cancellation of the policy to the complainant through registered letter. The opposite party does not owe any liability. The theft is denied. The loss is denied. The notice of the complainant has been replied. It is alleged that the investigation by the police has got no meaning. There is no deficiency in service of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties have filed evidence in support of their contentions. We shall discuss the evidence at relevant places but in our view the case of the complainant is not proved because it requires elaborate evidence. However on legal points, the Commission has got jurisdiction because the insurance company is situated in Uttaranchal. Its office is in Uttaranchal. The insurance has been done in Uttaranchal. The cancellation order has been passed in Uttaranchal. If Nepali citizens, Nepali shop, Nepali property are not to be insured in India, the insurance company should no