Heard learned counsel for  both the parties.

2.            These appeals are   filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to these appeals shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.             The case   of the complainant, in nutshell is that  the complainant has got a cabin installed  near Durga Puja Mandap,Satyanagar with the permission  of the OP No.3. Complainant alleged  that he has insured the cabin  by obtaining  Shop Keeper Insurance Policy from OP No.1 & 2. It is alleged that on 9.4.1997 the OP No.3 asked the complainant to remove the cabin without serving any  notice under  the   erstwhile Municipal Act . Thereafter the FIR was lodged by the complainant. H b e also informed the OP to settle the claim. Since, the claim was not settled, the complainant  filed the complaint.

4.            The OP  admitted  to have issued the shop keeper insurance policy to the complainant  for the period covering from  21.11.1996 to 29.11.1997. It is averred that they have not received any claim as stated  by him and allegation is false  one. Since, no claim petition has been received, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Further, it is stated that there is no agreement  executed between the parties under Shopkeeper’s Insurance Policy and as such no claim was settled. Therefore, there  is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ In the end the complaint petition is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs 1 & 2 and dismissed against the OP No.3. The OP No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.49,000/-(Rupees forty-nine thousand) only to the complainant towards claim under the policy, in addition they are also liable to pay an amount of Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred) only towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The entire amount is need to be paid within a period of forty-five days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to get the same executed in accordance with law.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the materials on record and written version with proper perspectives. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the letter as produced in the impugned order  is not a correct one and therefore  they have not made any investigation. Moreover, he submitted that complainant was not in lawful possession of the land when cabin was installed for which settlement of policy does not arise.  So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7                 Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is also letter exhibited before the learned District Forum showing that they have sent the letter on 11.03.2003 by Regd.Post with the permission of OP no.3  as they are in possession  and the OP No.1 & 2 have issued the policy upon satisfaction of necessary requirement. He, therefore, supports the impugned order.

8.                The only question is  this case arises  whether complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.                Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

10.         On scrutiny of the record, it appears that the shopkeepers’ insurance policy have been issued by OP No.1 & 2 to the complainant. It is also not in dispute that OSEB has given electric connection.  Not only this but also  the policy is filed as Annexure-3. Annexure-5 shows that the complainant has already informed to OP No.1 & 2 about settlement of his claim. In that letter it is stated that he has already informed on 10.04.1997 and subsequent dates. Not only this but also another letter is also sent to the OP  for availability of record. It is not in dispute  that the OPs are not aware to the loss of the property which is insured with the OP. It is settled in law that sitting over the claim is  clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs 1 & 2.  It is informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that till  now the matter  have not been settled. Since, the matter has not settled so far they filed  in 1997, it is clear total deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

11.         In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order is rightly passed and there is nothing to interfere with it. Hence, the impugned order is upheld and appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

           Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the Confonet  or Website of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

             DFR be sent back forthwith.