10 days delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 23.09.09 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 65/02. By the impugned order, the State Commission has once again (3rd time) dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant herein seeking indemnification of the loss to its plant, machinery, stocks etc which was damaged due to inundation following heavy rain. The complaint was rejected primarily on the ground that the Fire Policy ‘C’ taken by the respondent bank on behalf of the complainant did not cover the peril of inundation ..2.. due to rain etc. The matter was remanded to the State Commission earlier on two occasions by this Commission but no further material was filed on record by the appellant except the policy document. The State Commission on a reading of terms and conditions of the said policy document held that the peril in question was not covered. 3. We have heard Mrs. K. Radha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and have given our thoughtful consideration to her submissions. She seeks to assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the policy was not taken by the complainant itself but was taken by the bank on its behalf and they failed to take the appropriate Fire Policy ‘A’ covering the peril in question. In our view, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the terms and conditions of the relevant policy, the order passed by the State Commission is eminently justified and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the First Appeal is dismissed in limine.