JUDGMENT

F.A.No.973 of 2006

F.A.No.988 of 2006

Heard learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.No. 988 of 2006. Respondent is absent. However, appellant in F.A. No. 973 of 2006 is absent but counsel for the Respondent is present. Both Appeal arise out of single order passed in C.D No. 153 of 200. So both the appeals are disposed of by this common order.

2. Captioned appeal are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that he is the proprietor of M/s. Sri Jagannath Industries at Sisua. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant had purchased a valid Insurance Policy known as Burglary and House Breaking Policy covering the period of Insurance from 11.00 A.M. of 23.8.1999 to midnight of 22.8.2000 for a sum assured at Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is further alleged that due to super cyclone on 30.10.1999 a mob of about 500 people forcibly entered inside the store and looted away storage material consisting of paddy and flattened rice worth Rs. 2,50,000/-. The complainant informed the po