Ashok Bhan, President—Appellant herein, who was the opposite party before the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short), has filed this first appeal against the Order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the State Commission in complaint No.5 of 2005 whereby the complaint of the appellant has been allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:

Respondent/complainant herein is one of the partners of M/s On-Line Computers situated at Patna. Complainants were sanctioned a loan of Rs. 12,00,000 on 22.6.2001 by opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 Bank of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for the business of Computer Institute with the terms and conditions that the plant and machineries under stock would be under hypothecation worth Rs. 22,00,000 and the same has to be comprehensively insured. Complainants purchased computer and its accessories worth Rs.14,74,250 and insured the said articles under miscellaneous accidents policy and coverage for burglary and house breaking for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 with the appellant/opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 for which premium of Rs. 3,938 was paid. The said policy was taken for the period from 31.7.2001 to 30.7.2002. Accordingly, policy dated 1.8.2001 was issued in the name of M/s. On Line Computers and the premium amount was debited in the loan account of the complainants.

3. Respondent lodged an F.I.R. with Shashtrinagar police station on 29.12.2001 vide P.S. case No. 761/2001 alleging that theft/burglary was committed in the premises where the computers and its accessories were fitted. Complainant informed about the theft to the Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Patna Branch. The Bank lodged a claim under the abovesaid Insurance Policy with the appellant on 29.12.2001. Spot surveyor was appointed by the appellant who visited the spot and found the occurrence of theft to be true and recommended payment of the insurance amount to the appellant. In spite of repeated demands and legal notice claiming Rs.14,74,250 with interest @ 17% which the Bank was charging from the complainant, by the complainant, the appellant did not settle the insurance claim of the complainant. Thus, being aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service and slackness on the part of all the opposite parties.

4. Respondent, after being served, filed its written statements taking the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the claim amount is less than Rs. 20,00,000. That the alleged stolen articles were worth Rs. 12,38,550 only. That the Insurance Company got the information of the alleged theft from the Bank and Shri R.P. Singh was appointed for preliminary survey who submitted a detailed Report on 16.1.2002 .That the surveyor assessed the value of the means on the basis of market price at Rs.7,70,000, only against the .claim of the respondent. That Shri Chandra Shekhar Prasad was appointed as Surveyor for final survey report, who submitted his report on 28.7.2003. In his report, Shri Chandra Shekhar Prasad had raised some objection regarding the cash memo issued by one M/s Retech Computer Centre and the final assessment of loss made by him was to the tune of Rs.4,23,900. Thereafter, the Insurance Company appointed Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha to verify the cash memo issued by M/s Retech Computer Centre as per objection raised by Shri Chandra Shekhar Prasad, who, in his Report dated 24.5.2005, stated as under:

“bill issued by a non-existing firm would be fabricated.”

5. Further objection raised by the Insurance Company was that as per general condition No. 9 of the Insurance policy, all the benefits and rights occurring under the policy are liable to be forfeited, in case the insured uses fraudulent means or device for obtaining benefit under the policy. That the Insurance Company did not take any decision in the matter in view of condition No. 9 of the Insuranc