Heard learned counsel for both sides.

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

3.      The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant has a jewelry shop  and he has purchased policy from OP Nos.1 & 2 under “Jewellers Block Policy Schedule” for sum assured of Rs.4,00,000/- for the period from 24.2.2010 to 23.2.2011. It is alleged inter alia that on 11/12.9.2010 night some miscreants committed rubbery of the gold ornaments from his ship and the matter was reported to the police on the same day as well as reported to OPs. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 did not take care to make assessment of loss. On the other hand, they repudiated the claim as ‘’no claim’’. Being aggrieved with such repudiation the complaint was filed.

4.      OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed written version stating that the sum  assured is Rs.4,00,000/- whereas claim was lodged for Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, it is averred that they have deputed surveyor who computed loss at Rs.3,458/- but the complainant did not accept the same. So, they repudiated the claim as “no claim”. There is no any deficiency of service on their part.

5.      OP No.3 filed written version stating that the claim is not maintainable against them and they are not responsible in any manner.

6.      After hearing both parties, the learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx  xxx  xxx

            The OPs 1 & 2 are hereby directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) only as the theft loss sustained without any cost and compensation within thirty day of this order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum will accrue from the date of J.M.F.C. order, Kantabanji, till the realization without any demur.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by relying upon the order of the learned JMFC because the learned JMFC, Kantabanji in his order has not at all maintained the manner of computing loss whereas the surveyor has computed the loss as per the documents made available to him. According to him the surveyor has asked for the documents but the complainant has not produced the same for which he has made such assessment at Rs.3,458/-. He further submitted that the learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to  accept the surveyor’s report although the computation of loss should be the basis for computing  the settlement of claim. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.      Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that they have submitted all the documents as required by the surveyor and there is no fault on their side. On the other hand, he supports the impugned order.

9.      Learned counsel for  OPNo.3 - Bank submitted that there is no order passed against them. So he supports the impugned order.

10.    Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

11.    It is well settled in law that complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of  OP Nos. 1 and 2.

12.    It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the gold ornaments were stolen and matter was immediately informed to the police and then to the OPs. It is also not in dispute that surveyor was deputed by OP Nos. 1 and 2 but it did not compute the loss totally as the complainant did not cooperate  which is the matter of dispute.

13.    Learned District Forum has relied on the order of the  learned JMFC, Kantabanji. It appears from his order that the final form was accepted as fact true but no clue. Moreover, the order of learned JMFC does not show on what basis the loss has been computed. But this Commission being not the appellate authority only finds that the order of the learned JMFC cannot be the only basis to compute the loss.

14.    Be that as it may, the impugned order which has no leg to stand either on the order of the JMFC or any other criteria to compute the loss at Rs.4,00,000/- has thus no validity from passing order on computation of loss the matter is clear to show that there should be further assessment of the claim by OP Nos. 1 and 2 as facts of theft has been proved by complainant. Therefore, this Commission while affirming the impugned order partly  that there is theft but issue as to the computation of loss has to be decided, the operative portion is therefore, modified by directing OP Nos. 1 and 2 to compute the loss by engaging another surveyor and the complainant is directed to produce all the materials before OP Nos. 1 and 2. It is further directed that within 30 days from today the complainant would produce all the materials before OP Nos. 1 and 2 who shall asses the loss within 30 days from the date of production of the documents. It is further made clear that the documents whatever was already called for earlier should be only produced at a time. After the settlement, the amount would be paid to the concerned complainant within 15 days from the date of settlement. As such, the appeal is partly allowed. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

       Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

       Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.