Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President . <br /> The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant had opened a Kirana Shop by obtaining a loan of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only from B.A.G.B.(Utkal Gramya Bank) Barpali and the shop was insured by the Opposite Party vide policy No.345602/48/2006/367 on received of the premium of Rs.452/-(Rupees four hundred fifty two)only. On Dt.29/04/2006 goods amounting to Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only was stolen from the shop of the Complainant at night. The matter was reported to the police and the case is in the Court of J.M.F.C., Barpali vide G.R. Case No. 47/2006. The final report submitted by the police is in the process in the same Court. The Complainant had informed the Opposite Party through the Utkal Gramya Bank from where he has obtained the business loan. The Opposite Party deputed one Loss Assessor who made an assessment of loss of the stolen property and submitted the report to the Opposite Party without conveying anything to the Complainant. The Opposite Party also did not inform the mater to the Complainant. When no action was taken, the Complainant served the pleader notice for payment for the stolen goods. But the Opposite Party has not compensated the loss of the Complainant. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> The Complainant claims Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only towards compensation along with the cost of the case.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party in its version question the maintainability against it on the ground that the Complaint has not shown any deficiency in service by the Opposite Party, it also suffers from non-joinder of necessary party i.e. B.A.G.B., Barpali Branch. Besides the Complainant has availed the services of the Opposite Party for commercial purposes and is not a consumer under the provision of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act. On getting intimation of the theft the Opposite Party supplied claim form and deputed Loss Assessor Mr. S.C. Panda to conduct survey and assess the loss and asked the Complainant to return the claim form along with all relevant papers i.e. copy of F.I.R., Purchase Register, Sale Register and Stock Register for verification and settlement of the case. But the Complainant submitted only the copy of the F.I.R. and copy of intimation letter. The Opposite Party issued letter to the insured through the Bank to submit certain documents. Neither the Complainant nor the Bank submitted any further documents and the surveyor submitted his report stating that the actual amount of loss could not be ascertain as no books of accounts are maintained and shown to substantiate the actual loss. The surveyor suggested for closer of the claim filed of the Complainant for non submission of desired papers and police final investigation report by the Complainant. The Opposite Party closed the claim file and intimated the fact to the Bank. It has also replied to the Advocate's notice of the Complainant accordingly. Therefore, no deficiency of service has been shown by the Opposite Party towards the Complainant. The Complainant has suppressed material fact regarding the actual loss. The Opposite Party denies all allegation against it by the Complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint with a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only to be paid by the Complainant U/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition, Opposite Party's version as well as the copy of documents filed by the Parties and found as follows:-<br /> <br /> The present complaint is maintainable since it has been filed due to non-settlement of the claim by the Opposite Party lodge by the insured/Complainant. The capital investment made for the grossory shop through a loan from the B.A.G.B. (Utkal Gramya Bank) Barpali merely to Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only and so this is for earning one's livelihood and cannot be termed as commercial purpose. Hence the Complainant is a consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. The non-joinder of the B.A.G.B. can not render the complaint non-maintainable as the factum of the shop having been insured is admitted.<br /> <br /> The theft of goods from the shop of the Complainant is not disputed and the Opposite Party on receiving the intimation of occurrence of theft, has issued claim form with the request to return the same duly filed in along with the required documents.<br /> <br /> It is seen that the insurance have been made through the Bank and the Opposite party as well as surveyor have requested the Bank to pursue the Complainant for submission of documents in the matter. But as alleged by the Opposite Party, the Bank has not co-operated in the matter of obtaining the required documents from the Complainant. The facts and circumstances reveals that the Complainant has been a victim of non-co-operation from the Bank which should have been made a party in this proceeding. Since the shop was insured and the theft there in is no disputed principle of equity and natural justice demand that the Complainant should be compensated for the loss of goods for the theft in his shop.<br /> <br /> In view of the above discussion the Complainant is directed to submit the required documents to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is directed to take a lenient and accommodative view of the matter and settle the claim by making payment within thirty days from the date of receiving the documents from the Complainant.<br /> Complaint disposed of accordingly.<br /> No cost/compensation.<br />