The court established that the insurer's unjustified repudiation of the claim under the Jewellers Block Policy was not justified, emphasizing the lower standard of proof in consumer protection inquiries.

ORDER

V.R. Kingaonkar, Presiding Member - This appeal is preferred by original complainants against dismissal of their complaint No. 193 of 1996 vide impugned judgment and order dated 5th March, 2004 by the State Consumer Commission.

2. The appellants' case before the State Commission, briefly stated, was as follows:

The appellant No. 1 is a partnership firm and the appellant No. 2 was the acting partner thereof. The appellants used to run business of diamonds. They were having the business place in Panchratna Building, Opera House, Mumbai at the relevant time. They had taken Jewellers Block Policy No. 110900 on 27th June, 1989 for a sum of Rs. 1,18,50,000. The insurance policy was endorsed for a period of one year. On 26th February, 1990 at about 2.30 p.m. an incident of heist occurred. In the said incident, Wadilal Vora and others including some unidentified robbers intruded in the business premises of the appellants and decamped with diamonds form lot No. 116A worth Rs. 12 to 12.5 lakh. The deceased appellant No. 2 was threatened at gunpoint of dire consequences in case he would report the incident to the police. He was scared of death. He went to Surat. After 4-5 days, he returned to Mumbai. He mustered courage. Thereafter and lodged First Information Report with the police on 6th March, 1990. He later on, submitted insurance claim with the Respondent No. 1 (insurer). The insurer informed vide letter dated 3rd April, 1990 that necessary inquiry was being carried out. The insurer appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. Though the insurance claim was pursued by the appellants (complainants), it was not settled. Subsequently, they filed the complaint with the State Commission.

3. The Respondent No. 1 (insurer) resisted the claim. They alleged that it was not a case of consumer dispute. It was further alleged that the complaint was barred by limitation and that it was filed without any cause of action available to the appellants (complainants). The chief defence of Respondent No. 1 was that the story of alleged heist in the business premises of the appellants was untrue and was "stage managed" with ulterior motive to put forth a false claim. The claim was, therefore, unfounded. It was further alleged that the main culprits Wadilal Vohra and his wife, who were named in the FIR, were well known to the deceased appellant No. 2 and the incident pertained to certain money dealings between them. The Respondent No. 1 (insurer) expressed serious doubts about the very occurrence of the incident in view of the belated FIR filed by deceased the appellant No. 2 and other attending circumstances. Further contention of the insurer was that the appellants failed to furnish details of the incident and the outcome of the criminal case though they were called upon to give detailed information in this context. The insurer contended that there was inherent discrepancy in the versions of the deceased appellant No. 2 before the police, while lodging of the FIR and the averments made in the complaint before the State Commission. The insurer repudiated the claim on the basis of the opinion rendered by their Advocates, Solicitors and Notaries M/s. Motiwalla and Co. Thus, the insurer denied that the loss of diamonds was caused to the appellants during course of any criminal act of robbery, dacoity or theft. In view of such defence, the insurer submitted that the claim was not covered by the Jewellers Block Policy" relied upon by the appellants (complainants). The insurer, therefore, sought dismissal of the complaint.

4. The Respondent No. 2 was a formal party before the State Commission and no relief was claimed against it. In this appeal too no relief is claimed against the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 is the authorized investigator and the assessor of the loss and had been appointed to submit a report by the Respondent No. 1 (insurer). It is an admitted fact that the Respondent No. 2 submitted report dated 24th November, 1994 whereby net loss w