Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member: (1) Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order since they involved identical facts and common question of law. Appeal No.216/2012 pertains to an order in respect of Consumer Complaint No.421/2007 M/s.Vijay Stationeries through its Proprietor Vijay R. Manwani V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.; while Appeal No.217/2012 pertains to Consumer Complaint No.422/2007 (M/s.Vijay Stationeries through its Proprietor Vijay R. Manwani V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr). Both the complaints stood dismissed along with Consumer Complaint No.166/2008, by a common order dated 04.08.2010 and feeling aggrieved thereby three separate appeals were preferred i.e. these two appeals and Appeal No.215/2012 . Other appeal No.215/2012 is simultaneously disposed of by a separate order. (2) As far as present appeals are concerned, it is the grievance of the Appellant that their premises were gutted to the fire took place on 15.10.2006. The insurance was taken from the Respondent/Opponent No.1 – New India Insurance Co. Ltd. However, it is submitted by the Insurance Company that the policy did not cover the loss in question due to fire. It is alleged by the Complainant that the Respondent/Opponent No.2 Bank had taken policy only for theft and therefore, it along with insurance Company, is liable to make good to them for the loss sustained. Consumer complaints are directed accordingly. (3) It can be pointed out that the Insurance claim in respect of policy taken with United India Insurance Co. (pertaining to Appeal No.215/2012) was settled for amount of `21,30,000/- and it was also paid to the Complainant and which was accepted by the Complainant without any protest towards the full and final settlement. (4) Admittedly, the Complainants had taken financial assistance from Respondent/Opponent No.2 – IDBI and through whom the Insurance policy was taken. It is for the insured viz. the Complainants to verify whether the policy taken was as per his requirement or not. If those insurance policies were, admittedly, taken only for theft and not for fire and since the Complainants did not raise any grievance about it after receipt of the policy document, they now cannot complain about it. They also failed to show that their Bank acted contrary to their instructions while taking the policies. In the circumstances, no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Insurance Company and also against the Respondent I.D.B.I. Bank could be said to have been established. Dismissal of the consumer complaint, thus, cannot be faulted with. We hold accordingly and pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Both appeals, i.e. Appeal Nos.216/2012 & 217/2012 are not admitted and disposed of accordingly. (ii) No order as to costs. Pronounced on 17th March, 2012. | 
