JUDGMENT - Per Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---In this complaint, it is alleged that both the opposite parties were deficient in their service towards the complainant. 2. The short facts giving rise to this consumer dispute are that the complainant had purchased a plain paper copier machine for Rs. 1,27,801/- out of the loan obtained from the Bank of India, the O.P. No. 1. Under the agreement, O.P. No. 1 agreed to arrange for the Insurance Policy in case the plain paper copier was lost or damaged. The Bank wanted the security of the loan advanced to complainant. The Opposite Party No. 2 provided the insurance policy for the period between 30-1-1991 to 29-1-1992 under an insurance policy. Between the night of 20th and 21st April, 1991, there was theft of the said plain paper copier machine and the incident was reported to O.P. No. 2 on 24-4-1991. The Opposite Party No. 2 asked the complainant to furnish certain documents which she submitted. The aforesaid facts stand proved on the basis of documents placed on record. The complainant alleged in this complaint that the complainant's claim has been denied by the Opposite Party No. 2 on the ground that the premises mentioned in the policy were changed without the knowledge of the insurance company, which is a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The said letter is dated 31-10-1992 addressed to the complainant by O.P. No. 2. According to the complainant, the change of premises was informed to O.P. No. 2 by complainant twice under certificate of posting but the O.P. No. 2 failed to record the change of premises. The complainant, therefore, claimed the price of the lost machine amounting to Rs. 1,27,801 jointly and severaly from O.P. No. 1 and 2 and also claimed Rs. 2,500/- per month towards the loss of business. 3. A Notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was sent to the opposite party dated 1-6-1992. None appeared for the opposite parties when the case was fixed for hearing on 2-8-1992. We have, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2. The complainant represented by Shri D.D. Shinde, Advocate and Shri C.B. Gorhe was present for the Bank of India, O.P. No. 1. 4. After careful consideration of the allegations contained in the complaint, we find that the documents viz. We have, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2. The complainant represented by Shri D.D. Shinde, Advocate and Shri C.B. Gorhe was present for the Bank of India, O.P. No. 1. 4. After careful consideration of the allegations contained in the complaint, we find that the documents viz. Insurance Policy clearly show that the O.P. No. 2 had issued shop-keepers insurance policy in favour of the complainant for the security of the xerox machine on payment of Rs. 1730/- premium. The insurance was obtained at the instance of O.P. No. 1, the Bank of India who had advanced the loan. The complainant has placed on record the letters addressed by her to O.P. No. 2 the Insurance Company to settle her claim expeditiously. Similarly, vide letter dated 20-1-1991, the complainant informed the Branch Officer of O.P. No. 2 that insured copier machine had been shifted to the premises of Sessions Court at Baramati. The said letter was sent by complainant to O.P. No. 1 under certificate of posting. The copy of that letter was endorsed to O.P. No. 2, also. It is, therefore, apparent that the changed premises of the insurance machine were informed to the O.P. No. 2. It is, therefore, incorrect on the part of the O.P. No. 2 to deny the complainant's claim on the ground that the change of premises were not informed to the O.P. No. 2. Thus, we find that the claim of the complainant has been rejected by the O.P. No. 2 on frivolous and untenable grounds. We further find from the record that the incident was reported to the Local Police to investigate the offence of theft. The police investigated the offence and informed to the complainant dated 1-8-1992 that the complainant of theft was correct but the accused is not traceable. We also find from the record that complainant's claim was found to be genuine by the Bank Officials and local officers of the Insurance Company who had recommended the settlement of complainant's claim. Under these circumstances, we find that the complainant has proved her claim. The complainant has suffered the loss due to the delay in settlement of the claim and has sustained the loss of earning since the machine had been purchased by her for self employment out of the Bank loan. Under these circumstances, we find that the complainant has proved her claim. The complainant has suffered the loss due to the delay in settlement of the claim and has sustained the loss of earning since the machine had been purchased by her for self employment out of the Bank loan. Further, the complainant has to pay interest to the bank i.e. O.P. No. 1 for the loan which she had obtained for the purchase of the aforesaid machine. In our view, there has been serious deficiencies in the service of the opposite parties for causing delay in settlement of the claim as well as rejection of the claim for frivolous and untenable reasons. We are shocked to find that the Opposite Party No. 2 has made a false representation to complainant to reject her claim. Hence, we pass the following order :- ORDER 5. The complainant's complaint is allowed. The O.P. No. 2 is directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs. 1,27,801/- as claimed towards the price and Rs. 12,500/- towards compensation. The complainant be paid interest on the amount of Rs. 1,27,801/- from 1-8-1992 at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation. Complaint allowed. *****