JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President :---This is a complaint made by Kishor Mastkar a proprietor of Auto Service Station, Bombay alleging the deficiency in the service of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short Insurance Company). The complainant alleged that he had hired the service of Insurance Company which provided two insurance policies viz. "fire policy" and "money in transit policy" for the period 14-5-1991 to 13-5-1992. These facts are not in dispute. The opp. party No. 2 visited the complainant and demanded the premium amount for the aforesaid two policies. The opp. party No. 2 collected the premium amount of Rs. 15,938/- from the complainant for renewal of money in transit policy valued at Rs. 50,10,000/-. It was to cover a loss upto Rs. 4,25,000/-. A copy of renewal form is at exhibit "3". The opp. party No. 2 promised to issue money-in-transit policy before its expiry on 13-5-1992. The complainant alleged that his brother Ashok repeatedly approached opp. party No. 2 for issue of money in transit policy but every time he was assured that the policy is ready and ultimately it was never handed over to complainant. The complainant further alleged that opp. party No. 2 made false statement about the preparation of money in transit policy but never issued the policy. The complainant alleged that on 20-7-1992 his business premises were attacked by the dacoit. The incident was reported with Oshiwara Police Station, Bombay vide Crime No. 455/92. The copies of F.I.R. and panchanama are annexed at Exhibit "8". On the day of incident, the complainant informed the opp. party No. 1 about an offence of dacoity and submitted his claim report and also requested to issue money in transit policy for which he had already made payment of premium. It is the case of complainant that he was shocked to learn from opp. party No. 2 that the premium amount of Rs. 15,938/- was negligently were not deposited through their Bank to opp. party No. 1 and as a result of which the opp. party No. 1 did not issue the money in transit policy. The complainant further contended that opp. party No. 2 was ready to offer the complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- for his lapses but the complainant refused to accept the offer. The complainant approached through his advocate vide letter dated 5-8-1992 and requested to issue money in transit policy duly renewed. party No. 1 did not issue the money in transit policy. The complainant further contended that opp. party No. 2 was ready to offer the complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- for his lapses but the complainant refused to accept the offer. The complainant approached through his advocate vide letter dated 5-8-1992 and requested to issue money in transit policy duly renewed. However, nothing has been done by opp. parties and therefore in this complaint the complainant alleged the deficiencies in the service of the opp. parties and claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith his claim of Rs. 3,41,994/- caused by loss in the dacoity. In response to notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act both the opp. parties filed their written versions in the month of September, 1993, while denying the complainants insurance claim. It is contended on behalf of opp. party that there is no concluded contract between the complainant and the opp. parties. However, it is admitted that the premium amount of Rs. 15,938 paid to opp. party No. 2 on 13-5-1992 was not encashed and therefore, the risks were not covered under the conditions of insurance policy. It is further contended that the complainant was never communicated the acceptance of proposal for the renewal of money in transit policy by the opp. party No. 2 and therefore, the question of payment of premium by the complainant for the renewal of money in transit policy does not arise. It is also contended that the complainant is not a consumer since he had not hired the services of the opp. parties. There are other technical objections which are not worth taking cognizance. 2. We have heard the complainant and Shri Motiwala, adv. for the opp. parties. 3. There are some vital admitted facts on record. Undisputedly, the complainant was having the fire policy and money in transit policy for the period 14-5-1991 to 13-5-1992. Similarly, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 15,938/- by cheque to opp. party No. 2 towards the premium for renewal of money in transit policy. It is also an admitted fact that the said cheque was delivered to opp. party No. 2 in the name of opp. party No. 1 towards premium for the renewal of money in transit policy. The Exhibit "3" is in respect of money in transit policy and proposal which was recommended on 14-5-1992. It is also an admitted fact that the said cheque was delivered to opp. party No. 2 in the name of opp. party No. 1 towards premium for the renewal of money in transit policy. The Exhibit "3" is in respect of money in transit policy and proposal which was recommended on 14-5-1992. The opp. party No. 1 informed the opp. party No. 2 to obtain fresh proposal from the complainant before the acceptance of enhanced limits. It is also stated that the claim for Rs. 3,41,994/- is yet to be settled. The Exhibit "4" clearly mentions that Rs. 15,938/- was received as premium for the renewal of money in transit policy. This is a clear evidence to show that the opp. party No. 2 on behalf of opp. party No. 1 accepted the premium amount for the renewal of money in transit policy from complainant. When the aforesaid premium amount was accepted by opp. party No. 2 he was in the employment of opp. party No. 1 as Development Officer at Opera House Branch. Thus, it is clear that opp. party No. 2 was acting in the discharge of his official functions for opp. party No. 1. It is also clear from the aforesaid documents that the aforesaid premium amount was accepted by the opp. party No.2 from the complainant for the renewal of money in transit policy. Thus, it is very apparent that the complainant was covered with the risks for the period of two months from the date of payment of premium for the renewal of money in transit policy till the incident of dacoity on 20-7-1992. The negligence in the services of both the opp. parties are abundantly clear from the admitted facts. The complainant has filed his affidavit on 5-11-1993 through Kishor Mastkar to which there is no reply from the opp. parties as regards the allegations of negligence in service. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of this complaint, it is to be seen whether the insurance contract is concluded? The policy of insurance becomes effective when the formalities of offer and acceptance are completed. In the instant case, the offer made by the complainant was for renewal of money in transit policy. The complainant had approached the opp. party No. 2 on or about 3-5-1992 i.e before the expiry of policy, and submitted a proposal for renewal of the policy. In the instant case, the offer made by the complainant was for renewal of money in transit policy. The complainant had approached the opp. party No. 2 on or about 3-5-1992 i.e before the expiry of policy, and submitted a proposal for renewal of the policy. The complainants proposal for renewal of money in transit policy is at Exhibit "3". The proposal was accepted by opp. party No. 2 on behalf of opp. party No. 1. The opp. party No. 2 calculated and fixed the premium of Rs. 15,938/- for money in transit policy which is valued at Rs. 4,25,000. The Exhibit "3" clearly shows an endorsement dated 14-5-1992 under the signature of opp. party No. 2 stating therein that the proposal has been recommended for enhanced limits. The proposal is supported by cheque dated 14-5-1992 for Rs. 15,938/- duly filled in by opp. party No. 2. It is further mentioned in the receipt of cheque that the said cheque was calculated as premium for money in transit policy. The Exhibit "4" is the receipt of that cheque bearing No. 20244. Thus, it is clearly found that the proposal supported by cheque has been accepted by the opp. party No. 2 on behalf of opp. party No. 1 towards renewal of money in transit policy. Thus, we find that the policy of insurance becomes effective when all the formalities have been completed except issue of insurance policy. The opp. parties were bound to issue the insurance policy to complainant forthwith as all formalities were completed. The contract of insurance like any other contract in this case is completed by offer and acceptance of premium amount. There was no infirmity in the contract as no further formalities were required to be done on the part of the complainant. The delay has been caused by the Insurance Company for issue of the insurance policy. The offer made to the complainant was not rejected by the Insurance Company on any grounds before the incident of dacoity in question. Taking advantage of the non-issue of the insurance policy, the opp. parties are now coming with the case that there was no concluded contract. In our view, the delay in issuing the insurance policy and subsequently repudiating the liability has resulted into loss to the complainant. Taking advantage of the non-issue of the insurance policy, the opp. parties are now coming with the case that there was no concluded contract. In our view, the delay in issuing the insurance policy and subsequently repudiating the liability has resulted into loss to the complainant. On consideration of these facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the service of the opp. party towards complainant has been deficient in as much as no insurance policy in terms of the proposal after the payment of premium amount was issued by the opp. party as a result of which the complainant has been put to financial loss. 5. It is useful to know what is the meaning of word "service". The Supreme Court of India in the case of (Lucknow Dev. Authority v. M.K. Gupta)1, (1994)I S.C.C. 243 has interpreted Clause (o) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act which defines the "service". The Supreme Court has held the term as having variety of meanings "it may mean in financial or any acts resulting in term interest or happiness. It may be contractual, professional, public, domestic, legal, statutory etc. The concept of service thus is very wide. How it should be existing and what it mean depends on the context in which it has been used in the enactment under Clause (o) of the defined section. The defination is in three parts. The main part is having variety of inclusive clause and ends of exclusionary clause. The main clause itself is very wide. It applies to any services made available to potential users. The words indicated in its potential are significant. Both are of wide amplitude." 6. Considering the wider amplitude of defination of service, in repudiating the complainants claim after accepting the proposal and premium amount, clearly amounts the deficiency in the service on the part of the opp. parties. The defination of deficiency is defined in section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act. It means any fault, imperfection, shortcomings or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained under any laws for time being in force, or had been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of the contract or otherwise in relation to service. It means any fault, imperfection, shortcomings or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained under any laws for time being in force, or had been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of the contract or otherwise in relation to service. In our view, the facts and circumstances of this case clearly fall within the defination of deficiency as the manner of performance of opp. party which was required to be maintained or which has been undertaken to be performed by opp. party in pursuance of proposal to provide the indemnity to complainant for his money in transit activities was deficient. Thus, in our view, the deficiency in the service of the opp. party has been fully established. 7. That the complainant has sustained a loss in the act of dacoity is fully supported by the contemporaneous documents viz. F.I.R. and statements recorded by Police Inspector. The complainant has stated that he had sustained a loss Rs. 3,41,994/-. It is therefore, necessary to direct the opp. party to settle the complainants insurance claim for Rs. 3,41,994/- towards compensation and pay the interest on the aforesaid amount @ 18% from the date of repudiation of insurance policy. The other claims of compensation are rejected as not proved. Hence we pass the following order: Order 8. Complaint is allowed. The opp. parties are jointly and severally directed to settle the complainants insurance claim for Rs. 3,41,994/- towards compensation and pay the interest on the aforesaid amount @ 18% from the date of repudiation of insurance policy within 30 days from the recceipt of this order. Complaint is allowed.