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