JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President :---Since the subject matter in the aforesaid 81 complaints is identical, this common order is passed while deciding all these complaints. 2. It is worthwhile to mention the background which has given rise to these complaints. The complainants are mainly engaged in the business of purchase and sale of dry fish in Raigad District in general and in Mahad Taluka in Raigad District in particular. In order to carry out the business, the complainants initially and individually purchase the dry fish from Fishermen and store them in their godowns for the purpose of its sale in the respective villages. The complainants have godowns situated at their respective places mentioned in detail in their complaints. In order to carry on the business of dry fish, the complainants needed the financial assistance. The opposite party No. 2, the Mahad Co. Op. Bank Ltd. Mahad has been providing financial assistance to the complainants to carry out their business. While providing financial assistance, the opposite party No. 2 used to provide loan against stocks of dry fish stored in the individual godowns of the complainants against hypothecation of the dry fish stock. The complainants used to repay the loan amounts with interest to the aforesaid Bank, after the sale of their dry fish. This Scheme of advancing loan by the aforesaid Bank to the persons engaged in the dry fish business has been going on in Mahad, District Raigad since long. Every year, fresh loan used to be granted to the complainants against their stock of dry fish, consequent on the hypothecation of the stock. The opposie party No. 2, the Bank while advancing loan to the complainants, invariably used to insist on the complainants to get their stocks, insured by the opposite party No. 1, the Oriental Insurance Co. with a view to securing the repayment of the loans. The opposite party No. 2 used to directly negotiate with Insurance Company for purposes of obtaining their Insurance Policy with a view to obtaining the required Insurance Cover in case of likely loss of the stock. The premium amounts towards the Insurance Policy were to be paid directly to the opposite party No. 2 and the amounts so paid used to be discounted from each complainants account. The premium amounts towards the Insurance Policy were to be paid directly to the opposite party No. 2 and the amounts so paid used to be discounted from each complainants account. The opposite party No. 1 used to directly send the Insurance Policies to the opposite party No. 2 Bank for their record. The opposite party No. 2, invariably used to render necessary service of paying the premium amounts and obtaining the required Insurance Policy from opposite party No. 1 in the case of each complainant with a view to indemnify the loss of stock of dry fish. This arrangement continued for a number of years. 3. The complainants alleged that in the rainy season of 1989, there were heavy rains accompanied by cyclone in Mahad Taluka and all over Raigad District. The complainants godowns were heavily damaged due to the cyclone and the dry fish, was damaged due to rains. The result of the excessive rains was that the dry fish stored in each complainants godown started stinking. It was likely to give rise to epidemics as the stinking fish was unfit for human consumption. It is the case of the complainants that the local authorities, in order to prevent the disease and unhygenic conditions in villages, decided to dispose of the said stocks of dry fish. The Revenue Authorities conducted the panchanamas of the stocks in the case of each complainant in the presence of panchas. Thereafter with the directions of the Revenue Authority and the local bodies, the dry fish was removed by trucks and was dumped in the river, on 20th July, 1989. The disposal of the damaged dry fish stock was ordered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mahad and the Tahasildar with a view to removing the nuisance and avoiding unhygenic conditions prevailing in that area. According to complainants, the disposal of the damaged dry fish stock with its values concerning each complainant has been recorded in the panchanamas by the Public authorities. The complainants further alleged that unprecedented rains in the month of July, 29th 1989 was widely published in the press. 4. After the disposal of the stocks, the complainants approached the opposite party No. 2 to process their claims to indemnify their loss of stocks hypothecated to the Bank in order to settle their Insurance claims. The complainants further alleged that unprecedented rains in the month of July, 29th 1989 was widely published in the press. 4. After the disposal of the stocks, the complainants approached the opposite party No. 2 to process their claims to indemnify their loss of stocks hypothecated to the Bank in order to settle their Insurance claims. The complainants also alleged that officers of the Insurance Company, opposite party No. 1 and the officers of opposite party No. 2 promised the complainants that they will get their Insurance claims settled expeditiously. The complainants believed the representation made to them by the officers of both the opposite parties. The complainants further alleged that they were under the belief that the Bank, the opposite party No. 2 will forward their claims to the opposite party No. 1, in due course of time and they will get their insurance claims settled. 5. The complainants alleged in their complaints that the opposite party No. 1, Insurance Company declined to settle complainants claims of their loss of stock on the ground that the Policy issued to all the complainants was C type and that the loss due to flood is not covered under `C type policy. The complainants therefore, alleged that they totally depended on the promised services of the opposite party No. 2, the Bank for the purposes of obtaining the required insurance Policies. In fact, it is alleged by the complainants that they never received the Insurance Policies which were sent to the Bank directly by the Insurance Company because of the hypothecation clause. The complainants further alleged that while obtaining loan, they signed the proposal forms and it was incumbent on the Bank authorities to obtain the appropriate policy. The amount of premium was discounted from each complainants account and was duly paid to the Insurance Company. The complainants alleged that from each of the complainants the Insurance Company received Rs. 428/- towards premium through the Bank. It is also contended that the Insurance Company charged to each complainant Rs. 2 (two) rate of interest for C type policy and also charged Re. 1 (one) for Special Combustable Insurance for which each of the complainant was required to pay additional premium of Rs. 150/-. The complainants further contended that the rate of flood insurance is 0.75 paise which rate is less than Special Combustable Insurance rate of Rs. 1 (one). 2 (two) rate of interest for C type policy and also charged Re. 1 (one) for Special Combustable Insurance for which each of the complainant was required to pay additional premium of Rs. 150/-. The complainants further contended that the rate of flood insurance is 0.75 paise which rate is less than Special Combustable Insurance rate of Rs. 1 (one). It is therefore, alleged that the opposite party No. 1, the Insurance Company having received more rate of premium negligently granted `C type policy without considering the likely damage of dry fish stock due to rains. It is therefore, contended that the opposite party No. 1 ignoring the likely damage to dry fish stocks by floods, failed to provide the required policy to the complainants which has resulted into heavy losses to each complainant. According to complainants the act of opposite party No. 1, not to provide appropriate cover to the complainants, has been an act of negligence in the promised service by opposite party No. 2 and hence is deficient in service and therefore, each complainant has claimed compensation as stated in their individual complaints. The complainants therefore, apart from the loss suffered by them also claimed compensation and interest due to delay in settlement of their insurance claims. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed their separate written versions. 6. The opposite party No. 1, the Oriental Insurance Company in its written version submitted inter alia that the complaint is barred by limitation under Article 44 of the Limitation Act. It is also contended that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in the service of the Insurance Company. However, the opposite party No. 1 admitted to have insured the complainants stock of dry fish under the policies in question. It is further submitted by the Insurance Company that they had issued `C Policy which covers the risk of fire and "Spontaneous Combustion". According to the Opposite Party No. 1, on oral instructions from the officers of the opposite party No. 2, Bank, they issued the Insurance Policies in question. The opposite party No. 1 denied that the complainants are doing business of dry fish and that they sustained the loss during the heavy floods in July, 1989 while rendering the service to the complainants. 7. The Opposite Party No. 2 Mahad Co.-Op.-Urban Bank Ltd. (in short the Bank) filed its separate written version. The opposite party No. 1 denied that the complainants are doing business of dry fish and that they sustained the loss during the heavy floods in July, 1989 while rendering the service to the complainants. 7. The Opposite Party No. 2 Mahad Co.-Op.-Urban Bank Ltd. (in short the Bank) filed its separate written version. In its written version, the Bank has admitted that the complainants were doing the business of purchase and sale of dry fish and that they were issued the Insurance Policies in question by the opposite party No. 1 and the stocks of dry fish of complainants were hypothecated to opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 also admitted that due to heavy rains and cyclone on 24th July, 1989, the dry fish stocks of complainants were heavily damaged and was disposed off after making the Panchnamas on the advice of local authorities, with a view to preventing diseases and unhygenic conditions. It is further stated by the Bank that the Insurance Company has recovered the amount of premium prescribed for `A type policy but had wrongly issued `C type policy. It is also contended that the agent of the Insurance Company neither explained to the complainants or to the Bank the distinguished features between the two types of policies. The Bank further submitted that the Opposite Pary No. 1 should have issued `A Policy. The Bank also submitted that they were under the belief that the Insurance company had provided appropriate cover to indemnify the loss of complainants dry fish stocks as the Konkan area is prone to heavy rains and floods. The opposite party No. 2 also admitted that their officers verified the losses suffered by the complainants and extended their helping hand to the complainants by "re-scheduling" the loss on 28-6-1990. It is further contended by the Bank that there is no negligence on their part while rendering the service to the complainants but it is the Insurance company the opposite party No. 2, who is deficient in its service and liable to compensate the complainants losses under the terms and conditions of the policy. The Bank has specifically pleaded that in the event of grant of compensation, the amount be directly paid to the Bank with a view to recovering Bank dues from the complainants. The Bank has specifically pleaded that in the event of grant of compensation, the amount be directly paid to the Bank with a view to recovering Bank dues from the complainants. It is also contended by the Bank that the Insurance to cover the risk of "Spontaneous Combustion" was never asked for either by the complainants or by the Bank but the opposite party No. 1, has on its own, wrongly granted that cover. Lastly, the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the premisums for the policies in question were paid to opposite party No. 1 by the Bank in the month of June, 1989. The heavy rains and floods occured on 24th July, 1989 but the Insurance Policies were submitted to the Bank by opposite party No. 1, in the month of August, 1989. It has been seriously contended by the Bank that the Insurance Company has subsequently manipulated the policies with a view to avoiding the liability of settlement of claims. It is suggested by the Bank that the manipulation was made by the opposite party No. 1 to the effect that instead of `A type policies, `C type policies were prepared and supplied to the Bank. According to the Bank, there is no deficiency in its service but it is manifest in the service of the Insurance Company. The complainants filed the zerox copies of the cover notes issued in July, 1989 and the zerox copies of the stock statements showing the stocks of dry fish with each complainants duly verified by the opposite party No. 2 in the month of July, 1989. The complainants also filed copies of the Panchanamas about the quantity of the stock of dry fish destroyed in the flood, and the copies of the previous Insurance Policies and the Bank forms of proposals for obtaining the Insurance Policies. 8. The complainants filed 58 complaints on idential facts on 21st July, 1992. A statement of the complainants with their policies numbers and the period covered by the policy with their corresponding case Nos. alongwith claims is also filed on record. Thereafter on identical facts 23 complaints were filed. 9. The complainants in 58 complaints bearing Nos. 337 to 394 filed an application for amendment of their complaints on 23-11-1992. It was allowed by this Commission, by an order dated 10th December, 1992. alongwith claims is also filed on record. Thereafter on identical facts 23 complaints were filed. 9. The complainants in 58 complaints bearing Nos. 337 to 394 filed an application for amendment of their complaints on 23-11-1992. It was allowed by this Commission, by an order dated 10th December, 1992. Similarly, the aforesaid complainants also prayed for inspection of documents which was allowed by this commission and the opposite parties were directed to permit the complainants to inspect the records as regards the insurance policies of the complainants. However, the opposite party did not amend their pleadings by making consequential amendments. In the amendment application, it has been specifically pleaded by the complainants that the Insurance Company has recovered the premium prescribed for A Policy but issued `C Policy and the distinguishing features between the 2 policies were not explained either by the agent or the Insurance Co. officers to the complainants. It is also pleaded that the Konkan Region is known for heavy rains, floods and earthquakes and therefore, the Insurance Company, opposite party No. 1 should not have issued the `C Policies to the complainants. It is alleged that opposite party failed to provide the required risk of floods which according to complainants is the deficiency in the service of the opposite party. It is also contended that there was no necessity to grant the "Sponteneous Combustion" clause as it was not necessary considering the local requirement. It is also alleged that in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1990 filed by one of the consumers for similar deficiencies the Civil Court at Alibag by an order dated 30th September, 1992 decreed the suit against the Insurance Company. The aforesaid allegations made by the complainants have not been controverted either by opposite party No. 1 or opposite party No. 2 in their written versions. 10. Considering the allegations made in the complaints and the submissions made in the written version, filed by the opposite parties the following points arise for our consideration. 1. Whether the complaints filed by the complainants are barred by limitation? 2. Whether there was cyclone and floods on 24th July, 1989 in the Konkan Region in which complainants stocks of dry fish was destroyed? 3. Whether the opposite party No. 2, the Bank needed the policy to cover the risk of flood? 1. Whether the complaints filed by the complainants are barred by limitation? 2. Whether there was cyclone and floods on 24th July, 1989 in the Konkan Region in which complainants stocks of dry fish was destroyed? 3. Whether the opposite party No. 2, the Bank needed the policy to cover the risk of flood? And if so what type of policies were demanded from the opposite party No. 1? 4. Whether the opposite party No. 1, manipulated the issue of `C type policies with a view to depriving the complainants of their justified Insurance claims? 5. Whether on the basis of premiums paid and the requirements needed by the complainants, the opposite party No. 1 was bound to issue the policy covering the risk of floods? 6. Whether there are deficiencies in the service of opposite party No. 1 2 while rendering promised services to the complainants? 7. Whether the complainants stocks were destroyed due to the floods which occurred on 24th July, 1989 and as a result of which the complainants suffered loss? 8. Whether there has been negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1 to settle the complainants claims? 9. Whether the complainants are entitled to receive compensation and to what extent? 10. In the event of grant of compensation which of the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation to the complainants. 11. The complainants were represented by Shri Mehere, Advocate. The opposite party No. 1, the Oriental Insurance Company was represented by Shri Mokashi and Shri Ramdas, Advocates. The opposite party No. 2 was represented by Shri W.M. Limaye and Shri G.B. Karnadikar, Advocates. We have heard exhaustive arguments from all sides. 12. Considering the involvement of large number of persons and the peculiar facts and circumstances, we had heard this matter on 6th March, 1993 at a preliminary stage. It was brought to our notice that one of the consumers who faced a similar situation had filed a Civil Suit mentioned above in the Civil Court of Sr. Division at Alibag and an appeal being 1st Appeal No. 134/93 was carried in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. In that appeal, the Consumer and the Oriental Insurance Company settled their dispute, amicably and filed consent terms. The appeal has been disposed off in terms of consent by an order dated 24-2-1993. Division at Alibag and an appeal being 1st Appeal No. 134/93 was carried in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. In that appeal, the Consumer and the Oriental Insurance Company settled their dispute, amicably and filed consent terms. The appeal has been disposed off in terms of consent by an order dated 24-2-1993. The said appeal was filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. against the order of Civil Court at Alibag in Special Civil Suit No. 100/90. The plaintiff have claimed the amounts of Rs. 1,74,000/- but the Insurance Company had agreed to settle complainants claim for Rs. 1 lakh towards full satisfaction of the claim in that suit. The certified copy of the order is placed on record. In view of the particular nature of the dispute we offered both the parties an opportunity to explore the circumstances, whether claims of the complainants could be amicably settled. We had made it clear in that order that the premium for flood policy to be paid on the relevant time was Rs. 0.75 ps. for the value of Rs. 1,000/-. Whereas in the present complaints, the complainants paid the premium at the rate of Re. 1/- for the risk of Rs. 1,000/-. However, unfortunately, amicable settlement could not be reached between both the parties and therefore, we proceeded further to decide these complaints. 13. There are certain admitted facts in all these complaints. All the complainants are doing the business of purchase and sale of the dry fish in Raigad District. The complainants had paid the premium to the Oriental Insurance Company at the rate of Re. 1/- per Rs. 1,000/- risk. There was no official communication made by the opposite parties to the complainants as regards the rejection of complainants claims. It is admitted that Konkan Region is a flood prone area and there were heavy floods on 24th July, 1989 in that Region. It is also admitted fact that there are no written proposals from the Bank to ask for a particular type of policy for the complainants. Similarly, there is no correspondence between the complainants and the opposite parties as regards the nature of the Insurance policies, to be issued to the complainants. 14. It is also admitted fact that there are no written proposals from the Bank to ask for a particular type of policy for the complainants. Similarly, there is no correspondence between the complainants and the opposite parties as regards the nature of the Insurance policies, to be issued to the complainants. 14. All the copies of the cover notes, copies of the Insurance policies and the copies of the stock statement in respect of 58 complainants are in a separate file marked as `Article 1 on the record. A perusal of the cover notes shows that they are issued on one date i.e. on 10th July, 1989 issued at Mahad and duly signed by one Shri K.K. Shet. There is no seal or stamp of the Insurance Company and also no designation of the official having signed the cover notes. In col. `b meant for the name of the insured (to be written in block letters) no name of the insured is written. At col. c and d meant for agents name and agents code No. no name of the agent or his code number has been mentioned in the cover notes. None of the information in col. Nos. , c d which is to be written in block letters finds a place in the cover notes. There is no date as to when the person on behalf of the Insurance Company signed the cover notes. We have also examined the copy of the policies. The name of the insured in all the policies is written as "Mahad Co. Op. Urban Bank Ltd., Branch Mahad A/c (Name of each complainant). In the policy there is a col. to write cover note number which is left blank. The date of cover note is written as 10-7-1989 which does not tally with the date put on the cover notes. However, in none of the policies, the date of issue of the policy is written. Normally, at the end of the policies, the date of accepting the policies is written. But is is surprising that in none of these policies the dates of the issue of the policy is mentioned. The description of the property insured is mentioned. But it is stated that it has been occupied as "godown". Normally, at the end of the policies, the date of accepting the policies is written. But is is surprising that in none of these policies the dates of the issue of the policy is mentioned. The description of the property insured is mentioned. But it is stated that it has been occupied as "godown". In the copy of the stock statement, the stock position of each complainant in July, 1989 is shown giving the variety of the fish and the value of the stock. Every stock statement is duly verified by the Bank official and the official had put his initials and the date of verification. After a critical examination of the cover notes and the Insurance policies, we have come to the finding that in none of these documents, Insurance company mentioned the dates of issue of the policy. The Insurance Company also did not make any efforts to place before this commission as to when the polices were delivered to the Bank. No forwarding letters or any documentary proof have been placed before this commission to show as to on what date and in which month the policies were deliverd by the Insurance Company to the Bank. Under these circumstances, the Insurance Company has totally failed to establish as to when the policies were delivered to the Bank. The Bank has categorically asserted in their amended complaint that the policies were manipulated by the Insurance Company and were delivered to the Bank in the month of August, 1989. We will consider separately whether the policies are manipulated or not but in absence of denial from the Insurance Company, the assertion made by the Bank that the policies were delivered to them in the month of August, 1989 has to be accepted. The Insurance Company is significantly silent as to when the policies were delivered to the Bank. This circumstance lends credence in our minds as regards the allegations of the Bank that the policies were manipulated to suit the Insurance Company to disown the liability about the Insurance claims of complainants. It is important to note that the written version was filed by the Bank dated 23-9-1992. The written version of the Insurance Company is dated 10-10-1992. The Insurance Company was aware about the allegations raised by the Bank as regards the mainpulations of the Insurance Policies. It is important to note that the written version was filed by the Bank dated 23-9-1992. The written version of the Insurance Company is dated 10-10-1992. The Insurance Company was aware about the allegations raised by the Bank as regards the mainpulations of the Insurance Policies. Even then, there is no denial of this fact in any of the pleadings of the Insurance Company that they delivered the Insurance Policies in the Month of August, 1989. We will now answer the issues framed by us. 16. As regards, issue No. 1, we find that the complaints are filed in the month of August, 1992. The complainants alleged that due to unprecedented rains on 24th July, 1989, they suffered loss of their stock of fish. Thereafter, they approached opposite party No. 1 and the officers of the opposite party No. 2 and they promised complainants that they will get their insurance claims settled expeditiously. The complainants further alleged that they believed the statement of the representatives of the opposite party that their claims will be favourably considered. It is also alleged by the complainants that they believed that the Bank, O.P. No. 2 forwarded their claims to O.P. No. 1 for their consideration. It is the contention of the complainants that all the while, they were under the impression that since opposite party No. 2 Mahad Co. Op. Bank had taken up on itself the responsibility to take care of the Insurance of their dried fish stock, they believed that the Bank would take up the matter with the Insurance Co. It is also contended that till the filing of the complaints, none of the opposite parties informed the complainants that their claims were rejected. All the while the complainants were under the belief that their claims were under consideration. But since they were required to clear the arrears from the Bank and the interest was mounting, they approached the Bank every now and then and considering their difficulties, the Bank extended its helping hand to the complainants by "re-scheduling" loan accounts on 28-6-1990. Till that date, it was believed by the complainants that their matter is under the consideration of the Insurance Company. Till the filing of the complaints, the complainants never received any communication from the Insurance Company as regards the repudiation of their claims. Till that date, it was believed by the complainants that their matter is under the consideration of the Insurance Company. Till the filing of the complaints, the complainants never received any communication from the Insurance Company as regards the repudiation of their claims. It is therefore, clear that since the Insurance Company, opposite party No. 1 did not inform the complainants about the rejection of their claims for whatsoever reasons, we find that the claims were under the consideration of the Insurance Co. and therefore, they are not hit by conditions No. 6 (I) (II) of the Insurance Policy as the claims were surviving as not repudiated. We therefore, hold that all the complaints are not barred by limitation. We therefore, proceed to decide these complaints as filed within limitation. 17. The Oppsite party No. 1 in para 8 of its written version has admitted that it was aware about the damage to the goods and property of complainants caused due to unprecedented floods in the Raigad District on 24-7-1989. However, it is contended that the Insurance Company is not aware about the loss caused to the complainants since the Insurance Company was not informed. The O.P. No. 2 Bank in para 3 of its written version fairly admitted that on 24th July, 1989, there were heavy and unprecedented rains in the Raigad District and nature had played havoc all over causing huge damage to properties and lives. Apart from the admission from the O.P. No. 1 and 2, there is on record the Panchanamas dated 27-7-1989 conducted by the local authorities indicating the loss caused to each complainant. An order dated 31-7-1989 issued by the Nagarpalika (Municipal Committee, Mahad) to complainants and various persons in Mahad Town is on record, intimating that foodgrains and food stuffs damaged by the floods should be destroyed as it was dangerous to the health and it was likely to create health problems in the area. It was also informed by the Municipal Committee in the said order that if the disposal of the food stock is not made by the owners, the Municipal Committee will have to take action. It is therefore, clear from these documents and the facts which are on record that the complainants suffered loss to their dry fish stocks due to cyclone and floods on 24th July, 1989. 18. It is therefore, clear from these documents and the facts which are on record that the complainants suffered loss to their dry fish stocks due to cyclone and floods on 24th July, 1989. 18. We now come to the important issue whether the opposite party No. 2, the Bank needed the policies from opposite Party No. 1 to cover the risk of floods as regards the dry fish stock of complainants. It is an admitted fact by both the opposite parties that all the complainants were given Insurance Policies by O.P. No. 1 to cover the stock of their dry fish. It is also undisputed that the O.P. No. 2, the Bank was required to obtain the Insurance Policies against the hypothecation in order to secure the repayment of loan. In fact such a practice has been in vogue in that area to ensure the recovery of the loan advanced by the Bank. According to opposite party No. 2, Bank, they paid premium amounts to the Insurance Company in respect of the policies issued to each complainant as per the rate of premium prescribed for `A Policy. But the opposite party No. 1 alleged to have wrongly and negligenty issued `C policy. It is the submission of the Bank that the distinguishing features between `A policy and `C policy were not explained by the agent of the opposite party No. 1 to the Bank, O.P. No. 2. It is further submitted by the O.P. No. 2 that the Insurance Company ought to have issued `A Policy on the basis of the rate of premiums demanded and paid to the Insurance company. The Bank has expressed surprise as to why `C Policy was issued by the officers of the Insurance Company. It is contended by the Bank that they were under the bona fide belief that the policy in question covered all risks as the premium had been paid in full as asked by the Insurance Company. It is contended by the Bank, O.P. No. 2, that the officers of the Insurance Company, were aware that the policies were required for the safety of goods namely dry fish which were hypothecated to the Bank. It is further contended that the Bank never asked for combution clause as it is totally unwarranted for dry fish stock. It is contended by the Bank, O.P. No. 2, that the officers of the Insurance Company, were aware that the policies were required for the safety of goods namely dry fish which were hypothecated to the Bank. It is further contended that the Bank never asked for combution clause as it is totally unwarranted for dry fish stock. Under these circumstances, it is contended by the Bank that the Insurance Company is absolutely wrong when it says that `C Policy was demanded by the Bank. 19. It is the case of the complainants that the Insurance Policy was insisted upon by the Bank and the Bank had taken all the responsibility to obtain the suitable polices to ensure the risk of dry fish stock in the event of unforseen circumstances, like floods which are common in Konkan Region. It is also alleged by the complainants that, it was for the opposite party No. 2, Bank to negotiate with the Insurance company for obtaining the required Insurance Policy. It is surprising that none of the complainants had any opportunity to read the policies as the Insurance Co. directly delivered them to Bank without the knowledge of the complainants. Admittedly the Insurance Policies were delivered by the Insurance Co. directly to the O.P. No. 2, Bank. Thus the complainants were not aware as to what type of policy was asked for by the Bank and what type of policies were delivered by the Insurance Co. Admittedly there are no proposal forms with O.P. No. 1 in any of the cases. On the contrary the Bank has come out with a defence that they have paid premiums applicable to `A type of policy and therefore, they were under the impression that required policies to cover the risk of floods and cyclone will be issued by the Insurance Co. Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt in any case must go to complainants since the policy required was `A type policy and not `C type policy. Considering the requirements of insured stocks and regional weather condition, the Bank needed `A type policies to cover loss of dry fish from the risks of floods. From the nature of the premiums paid to the Insurance Company, we have to hold that the Bank wanted A type of policy, where as the opposite party had granted `C type policy with combustion clause. From the nature of the premiums paid to the Insurance Company, we have to hold that the Bank wanted A type of policy, where as the opposite party had granted `C type policy with combustion clause. Another circumstance which is submitted by the Learned Advocate of complainants is that it is well known that Raigad District in Konkan division receives heavy rains annually. Therefore, in all probabilities, the Insurance Company was expected to issue policies to cover the risk of cyclone and floods which was likely to cause damage to the dry fish stock. The Fire policy with combustion clause is totally irrelevant in this area since not a single claim of a combustion clause was made to the Insurance Company as regards the loss of dry fish stock due to combustion, during the past several years. This has been admitted by the Learned advocate of opposite party No. 1 Shri Ramdas during arguments. We fail to understand as to how the opposite party No. 1, Oriental Insurance Company who has been doing the business in this District since long were so ignorant about the likely loss of dry fish stock due to floods. The Insurance Company can not deny the occurrence of heavy rains in this Region and claim ignorance. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not understand the reasoning of the Insurance Company to issue a combustion clause with high premiums for the stocks of dry fish. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that there was likelihood of loss of dry fish stock due to combustion. It is well known that the combustion clause is generally invoked in cases of stocks of explosives, coal and such similar substances. Considering the totality of the circumstances, in this case, we have to hold that the Bank wanted the risk of flood to be covered by the policies by issuing `A type of policy. It is very apparent that when the premiums have been paid as applicable to the `A type of policy, the same was required to be issued by the Insurance Company. In absence of written proposal from the Bank, the chain of circumstances suggests the only one inference that `A type policy to cover the risk of flood and cyclone was required by the Bank to ensure the recovery of their loss against the hypothecated stock of dry fish. 20. In absence of written proposal from the Bank, the chain of circumstances suggests the only one inference that `A type policy to cover the risk of flood and cyclone was required by the Bank to ensure the recovery of their loss against the hypothecated stock of dry fish. 20. The consequential issue which arises for our consideration on the basis of the allegations made by opposite party No. 2 is as to whether the Insurance Company opposite party No. 1 manipulated the grant of `C type policy instead of `A type policy. We have already discussed in previous paras that there are no written proposal forms maintained by the Insurance Company. There are no dates indicating the dates of grant of policies on any of the Insurance policies. The col. to write cover note number in each policy is left blank. In none of the policies, the date of issue of the policies is written. What is found in each policy is the commencement period of the policy but that is not indicative of date of grant of policy. In the stock statements the stock position of each complainant is shown as in July, 1989 giving the variety of the fish in stock and value of the stock. Each stock statement is duly verified by the Bank official and who has put his initials and the date of verification. No evidence has been given by the Insurance Co. to show as to when the policies were delivered to the Bank. The Bank in its written version in para 7 clearly alleged that the Insurance policies have been submitted by the Insurance Company to the Bank in August, 1989. It is alleged tha O.P. No. 1, i.e. Insurance Co. has manipulated the policies as Fire policies under category `C. It is contended by the Bank, O.P. No. 2, that in order to disown the liability to compensate the loss of the insured, the Insurance Company has subsequently manipulated and prepared `C type policies, although the O.P. No. 1 had paid premiums for `A type policies to cover the risk of flood and cyclone. As discussed by us in the preceding paras, these allegations made by the Bank were not controverted by the Insurance Company. No explanation is offered by Opposite Party No. 1 in reply to the allegations of manipulations while granting the policies. As discussed by us in the preceding paras, these allegations made by the Bank were not controverted by the Insurance Company. No explanation is offered by Opposite Party No. 1 in reply to the allegations of manipulations while granting the policies. Thus the contentions raised by Bank about manipulations of policies goes unchallenged and hence we have no reason to reject it. No evidence whatsoever has been placed on record by the Insurance company as to when the Insurance policies were delivered to the Bank. Under these circumstances, we have no other alternative but to accept the admission given by the Bank that the policies were delivered in the month of August, 1989 obviously after the occurance of flood. In all these complaints, huge amounts are involved and the Insurance Company was aware that they are required to indemnify the huge amount of losses due to their negligence because issuing the wrong Insurance Policies. These circumstances irresistably lead to the conclusion that the Insurance Co. manipulated the policies in question from `A to `C types. We are firmly of the view that the Insurance Co. in all these complaints manipulated the Insurance policies after the occurence of the flood and intentionally issued `C type policies to deprive the claims of the complainants. In our view, the Insurance Co. is negligent in rendering the required and needed policies to the complainants although required premiums amounts were paid. It can not take the advantage of its own lapses by claiming that `C policies were demanded and `C policies were granted. There is not even an iota of evidence to support this defence taken by the Insurance company. 21. From our discussion in the preceeding paras, it is evident that in view of the facts and circumstances of these complaints, the Insurance Company, the O.P. No. 1 was bound to issue `A policy covering the risk of floods to the complainants. The complainants have paid their premiums which are required to be paid for the `A policy which covers loss due to floods. 22. Coming to issue No. 6, which is important for the just decision of this complaint, we would like to discuss at length the material which is placed before us. The complainants alleged that the opposite party has committed the following deficiencies while rendering service to the complainants. (i) When `A Policy was needed the Insurance Co. 22. Coming to issue No. 6, which is important for the just decision of this complaint, we would like to discuss at length the material which is placed before us. The complainants alleged that the opposite party has committed the following deficiencies while rendering service to the complainants. (i) When `A Policy was needed the Insurance Co. wrongly issued `C policy. (ii) The Insurance Policies were not sent immediately after the payment of premiums but were despatched after the occurance of flood and are manipulated. The flood risk was granted by the Insurance Co. previously but it was discontiuned without notice to the complainants. (iii) No survey of the damage caused to the complainants was made by the Insurance Company even after the loss was reported to the Insurance Company. (iv) The complainants were not informed above the nature of policies sent to the Bank. (v) There has been inordinate delay in settling the complainants claims. (vi) No written proposal forms required under the rules were maintained as regards the grant of insurance polices in question. (vii) The premiums were collected for `A type of policies and wrongly `C type policies were granted. The complainants contended that opposite parties, particularly the Insurance Company has been deficient in its service in many ways. 23. It is contended by the complainants that during the year 1987-88 about 18 policies were issued covering the risk of flood. A list of such policies covering the flood risk with premiums paid was submitted to this commission. This practice of covering flood risk was invoked prior to 1988-89. In the year 1988-89, the Insurance Co. is alleged to have indulged in an unfair trade practice of withdrawing the flood risk without due notice to the parties concerned i.e. the Bank the O.P. No. 2 or the insured. When the Insurance company decided to drop the flood risk from the year 1988-89, the Insurance Company ought to have obtained fresh proposal forms from the complainants with the understanding that the policies will not be covering the risk of flood. It is expected from the Insurance Co. to grant appropriate policies to cover the likely risk in that Region, when admittedly Konkan Region was prone to heavy floods annually. In the normal course of business, it was expected on the part of the Insurance Co. to have extended the cover of flood risk. It is expected from the Insurance Co. to grant appropriate policies to cover the likely risk in that Region, when admittedly Konkan Region was prone to heavy floods annually. In the normal course of business, it was expected on the part of the Insurance Co. to have extended the cover of flood risk. On the contrary the complainants alleged that the proposal forms for "all risks" requirements were submitted by them are being supressed by the Insurance Co. There is on record an affidavit by the agent of the Insurance Co. to the effect that the proposed forms were not obtained at all, as it was not possible for him to approach individual loanees. It was expected of the Insurance Co. to inform the complainants either through their agent or through the Bank, that they had dropped the risk of flood cover from the policies and that they were issuing only the `C policy covering the combustion. It is evident that no such understanding has been given by the Insurance Company to any interested parties about the dropping of flood risk. In our view, failure on the part of the Insurance Co. to provide the appropriate cover when it is apparently necessary to cover the likely risk in that area is a deficiency in the service. On the contrary we find that the Insurance Company has granted a redundant risk of combustion which was not at all necessary nor was it asked for so far as the dry fish stock is concerned, in this particular Region. In the instant cases, we find that the policies were renewed mechanically by the Insurance Company without taking care to provide a cover of flood risk which was granted in previous years. It therefore, clearly appears to be a case of negligence on the part of the Insurance Co. to have ignored the likely damage of dry fish stock due to rains in that region. It has been argued by the Insurance Company that the complainants had failed to pay additional premiums consequent upon the in the rate of premium and therefore, the cover was restricted. But it is seen from the attached list of policies that the Insurance Co. first issued cover note for Rs. 428/- and then collected additional premiums of Rs. 535/- before issue of the policies. Therefore, the argument that the premium was inadequate to cover the risk is fallacious. But it is seen from the attached list of policies that the Insurance Co. first issued cover note for Rs. 428/- and then collected additional premiums of Rs. 535/- before issue of the policies. Therefore, the argument that the premium was inadequate to cover the risk is fallacious. There was no question of denial by the complainants to pay additional premiums as the same was directly being deducted from the loan account of the complainants. The complainants needed the cover of all risks as per the previous policies of the year 1987-88. It was contended by the Insurance Co. that the opposite party No. 2 had expressed the desire that flood risk need not be covered. Therefore, they continued to pay premum of Rs. 428/- only. However, O.P. No. 2, i.e. Bank has stated that they had sent the proposal forms duly filled in by the loanees in presence of the Bank officers. It would be pertinent to note here that the Insurance Co. had failed to produce any such letter from the Bank asking them for deletion of flood risk. We find there is nothing on record to suggest that the O.P. No. 2 Bank had suggested not to cover the flood risk in relation to the stocks of dry fish of complainants. Thus we find that there has been clear deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company not to provide flood risk cover while granting the policies to the complainant. 24. We have discussed in the preceeding paras that O.P. No. 2 alleged in para 7 of the written version that the Insurance Co. manipulated the policies as `C policy wherein the premiums were collected for A policy. We would like to illustrate on the basis of few examples as to how the Insurance Co. in the instant complaints manipulated the policies. All the policies in question do not show the dates of issue of policies. The commencement date of the risk has been shown as the date of issue of policies. It is therefore, very obvious that the policies have been issued subsequently. It has been contended by the agent of the Insurance Co. that the cover notes are issued on the same day when the premiums are paid. The following facts will falsify the claim of the Insurance Company. It is therefore, very obvious that the policies have been issued subsequently. It has been contended by the agent of the Insurance Co. that the cover notes are issued on the same day when the premiums are paid. The following facts will falsify the claim of the Insurance Company. i) Cover Note No. 151589 (C. No. 351/92) and Cover Note No. 151590 (C. No. 354/92) are issued on 23-6-1989. Whereas the earlier Cover Note No. 151588 (C. No. 337/92) has been issued on 10-7-1989. ii) Cover Notes Nos. 919941 to 919944 are issued on 10-7-1989. Whereas Cover Notes Nos. 919945 to 919950 which are subsequent are issued on 23-6-1989. (these cover notes refer to complaint Nos. 653/92, 651/92, 638/92 636/92 and 366/92, 338/9s, 356/92, 357/92, 346/92, 384/92 respectively) 25. We also find that contrary to the practice of the Insurance Co., the policies are not accompanied by official stamped receipts. Therefore, the manipulation of the premiums with a view to avoiding the flood risk cover is very obvious. The following table will show that the amount of premium was also manipulated to deny the flood risk cover to the complainants. The premium rates of policies issued in respect of complaint Nos. 647/92 bearing cover Note No. 9199391 for 89-90 and 947873 for 1987-88 in the same godown are shown below : Policies issued prior to Policies issued after occurance of flood occurance of flood. Fire risk Rs. 1.50/- Fire risk Rs. 2.00/- Flood risk Rs. 0.75/- Flood risk Deleted Sponteneous Spont. Comb. Rs. 1.00/- Combustion risk Rs. 0.75/- Rs. 3.00/- Rs. 3.00/- 26. The aforesaid are quoted to demonstrate as to how policies have been manipulated by the Insurance Co. The most important circumstance is that the allegation of the O.P. No. 2 that the policies have been manipulated by the Insurance Co. and that instead of `A policies, `C policies have been issued in the month of August, 1989 after the occurance of the flood has not been denied either in its written version or in the affidavit by the Insurance Co. In our view, the manipulation made by the O.P. No. 1 while issuing the Insurance Policy to the complainants amounts to a glaring instance of deficiency in their service. 27. Normally when any damage is sustained to the insured property, the Insurance Co. takes a cognizance of this fact and sends the surveyor to assess the loss. In our view, the manipulation made by the O.P. No. 1 while issuing the Insurance Policy to the complainants amounts to a glaring instance of deficiency in their service. 27. Normally when any damage is sustained to the insured property, the Insurance Co. takes a cognizance of this fact and sends the surveyor to assess the loss. In the instant case, no survey has been made by the Insurance Company although the local agent of the Insurance Co. was aware of the happenings in Raigad District and particularly in Mahad town, because the loss had to be reimbursed by the Insurance Co. to the policy holders. In the instant complaints, the Bank, the O.P. No. 2 has stated that when the fact of loss caused to the complainants, was brought to their notice, the complainants had produced the Panchanamas dated 27-7-1989 and therefore, the loan account was rescheduled on 28-6-1990. It is stated by the O.P. No. 2 that the Chairman of the Bank had received representation from the claimants and other traders on 12-8-1990 and therefore, he had addressed a letter to the then Hon. Finance Minister Govt. of India at the time of his visit in the Raigad Dist. The Bank therefore, denied the suggestion that the Bank did not take any timely steps to lodge the claim with the Insurance Co. It is suggested by the Bank that the Insurance Co. was awere of these happenings and that was by itself like a notice about the occurence of loss to the complainants. It would not be correct for the Insurance Company to expect a notice about the loss sustained by the complainants as the policies were hypothecated to the Bank. The complainants were neither knowing the contents of the policies nor were they aware whether policies were `C type of `A type and therefore, the question of their reporting the matter to the Insurance Co. does not arise. It was the duty of the Insurance Co. to take cognizance of the large scale destruction of the Insured property in Raigad District. It is not the case of the Insurance Co. that they had no source to know the loss suffered by the numerous insured persons who had obtained the Insurance policies. The Insurance Co. only kept quiet with a view to repudiating the settlement in the event of any claim. It is not the case of the Insurance Co. that they had no source to know the loss suffered by the numerous insured persons who had obtained the Insurance policies. The Insurance Co. only kept quiet with a view to repudiating the settlement in the event of any claim. In our view such in -action on the part of the Insurance Co. is also a deficiency in the service. The Insurance Co. is expected to render service to a consumer not merely by issuing an Insurance policy, the service continues till settlement of the claims if any, after the loss has been suffered by the insured. Thus in the instant complaints, we find that the Insurance Company were very callous about the heavy damage caused to the property of the insured persons. 28. There has been also an inordinate delay in settlement of the Insurance claim of the complainants. The occurance of flood was on 24th July, 1989. The Insurance Co. had been frequently approached by various persons for settlement of their claims and yet till the filing of these complaints, the Insurance Co. had not taken any cognizence and did not take any step to settle complainants claim. That again by itself is a deficiency in the service of the Insurance Company. 29. When Insurance Policy is required to be granted, normally a proposal form is obtained from the persons who want Insurance policy. The proposal forms are printed for purposes of obtaining the Insurance policy. In the instant case, it is stated by the Insurance Company in para 11 of its written version that proposal forms for Insurance were not submitted in writing as the number of borrowers were too many. We are totally in dark as to what type of cover in the policy was demanded by the insured through the Bank. In absence of such forms, it is very convenient for the Insurance Company to say any-thing which suits, its defence. The issuing of Insurance policy without there being proposal form itself demonstrates serious deficiencies in the service of the opposite party. The proposal forms are the vital documents to know as to what was demanded by an insured in order to cover the risk of his property. We find in this case, apart from the absence of proposal forms, there is nothing in writing either in correspondence or in the office of the Insurance Co. The proposal forms are the vital documents to know as to what was demanded by an insured in order to cover the risk of his property. We find in this case, apart from the absence of proposal forms, there is nothing in writing either in correspondence or in the office of the Insurance Co. to indicate as to what type of policy was asked for by the Bank. The Bank, O.P. No. 2 in its turn has alleged that they wanted full cover of the risk including flood because the Bank was concerned more for the safety of the dry fish stocks since the loan was advanced to the consumers on the basis of dry fish stocks. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to accept the submission of the Bank that they wanted the flood cover which was very reasonable and genuine under the facts and circumstances of the requirements of the Raigad District, which is admittedly a flood prone region in Maharashtra State. 30. Lastly we find that the Insurance Company has collected the premium which meant for `A type policy and issued `C type policy. It has been discussed by us in the previous paras showing the table of respective flood risk, where the amount is shown as 0.75 paise as premium and how Re. 1% premium has been collected showing unnecessary and irrelevent spontaneous combusion clause. The said premium of Rs. 0.75 covers the risk of flood. We fail to understand how it was manipulated to Re. 1 after the occurance of the flood. 31. Considering the aforesaid instances of deficiencies we are firmly of the view that the O.P. No. 1, Oriental Ins. Co. has been deficient in its service towards complainants. That the stocks of complainants were destroyed due to floods which occured on 24th July, 1989 is not in dispute. The loss suffered by the complainants is also not disputed. The Panchanamas recorded by the local officers are placed on record which are duly signed by Panchas and the villagers and they clearly indicate the losses suffered by the complainants. The dry fish stocks which were affected due to flood was required to be destroyed as it was causing health problem in that area. Therefore, the loss suffered by the complainants is very obvious. 32. The dry fish stocks which were affected due to flood was required to be destroyed as it was causing health problem in that area. Therefore, the loss suffered by the complainants is very obvious. 32. We have already discussed the negligence on the part of the Opposite parties and particularly O.P. No. 1, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. to settle the complainants genuine claims. 33. Lastly, we now consider the loss suffered by each complainant and to what extent they are entitled for compensation. In the absence of survey report, we have to rely on the averments made by each of the complainants as regards the stock of dry fish in his godown and the quantum of losses he had suffered. We have gone through the statement prepared by the O.P. No. 2, (the Bank) in which the dues recoverable from the Loanees who are complainants in these complaints, are mentioned. In that statement, the date of advance of the loan, sanctioned loan amount, the rate of interest and the repayment are shown and in the last column outstanding loan with interest is shown against each complainant. The O.P. No. 2, Bank who has advanced a loan to the complainants against the stock in their godowns the stocks are verified by the Bank and every time a strict check is made by the Bank to know the stock position. The Bank is a local Co. Op. Bank and all the complainants are residing at the same place where the Bank operates to know the stock position of each complainant through their employees. The Bank has stated in its written version that on 25th June, 1990 they rescheduled the loan account of each complainant. They had placed reliance on the Panchanamas of the losses made by local officials. It is stated in para 3 of the written version that the O.P. No. 2 got verified the situation through its officials and extended helping hand to the complainants by rescheduling the loan account. From all these facts it appears that the Bank had exercised reasonable care to assess the stock position of the complainants which has been reflected in the chart submitted to us. In our view therefore, it is safe for us to accept the said chart filed by the Bank for purposes of assessing the loss caused to each of the complainants. In our view therefore, it is safe for us to accept the said chart filed by the Bank for purposes of assessing the loss caused to each of the complainants. We would therefore, like to accept the said statement for purposes of assessing the loss sustained by each complainant. Under these circumstances, we have to allow this complaint since the allegations as regards the deficiencies in the service of the opposite party No. 1 are proved on the basis of material on record. We are further satisfied that each of the complainant is entitled to claim the amount of compensation shown in Col. No. 5, of the statement attached with this order. The O.P. No. 2 Bank has prepared a statement showing the factual position of dues and claims made in their complaints. We have on the basis of that information prepared a statement which is attached with this order. However, in complaint Nos. 337, 364, 349, 354, 357, 359, 362, 372, 373, 378, 385, 387, 631, 634, 638, 645, 648 and 649, the amount shown in Column No. 5 exceeds the sum assured shown in Column No. 4. Hence the complainants in the aforesaid complaints shall be entitled to claim compensation for the amount shown in column No. 4 against their names in the statement. It is further found that apart from the deficiencies described by us in this order, we find that there has been inordinate delay in settling the complainants claims by the O.P. No. 1 and hence complainants are entitled to claim compensation. In our view, it would meet the ends of justice if each of the complainant is paid interest by way of compensation as charged by opposite party No. 2, Bank when the rescheduling of loan was made on 28-6-1990. It is also found from the statement that each of the complainant has made some repayments to O.P. No. 2 which is shown in Column No. 9 of the statement. In Column No. 10, the balance due to the Bank by each of the complainant is shown and in Column No. 11, the balance due to each complainant by the Bank is shown. In Column No. 10, the balance due to the Bank by each of the complainant is shown and in Column No. 11, the balance due to each complainant by the Bank is shown. In our view, it would meet the ends of justice if the amount of compensation ordered in this case be deposited in the account of each complainant maintained by O.P. No. 2 in view of the Bank clause attached to each policy. The O.P. No. 2, in that event after calculating the payments made by each complainant shall refund to each of the complainant the balance due to him after deducting the arrears due against each complainant. 34. While parting with this order, we would like to made the following observations. A large number of complaints are being received by the District Forum as well as the State Commission in this State against the Insurance Companies. We would like to mention here particularly that in a majority of these complaints we have come to the conclusion that the Insurance Companies concerned have been negligent resulting in deficiencies in their services to the insured and we have awarded appropriate compensation to the consumers in the respective complaints. A period of four years has elapsed since the Consumer Protection Act has come into force in Maharashtra State and despite the fact that large number of cases of inaction, delay, wrong rejection of claims, negligence and deficiencies in service have been pointed out in our judgements, we find that no proper notice has been taken by the Supervisory Authorities of the Insurance Corporations. To use a very mild language, we would like to observe that this is a very sad state of affairs of the working of these public sector undertakings. The present complaint in our opinion accentuates the above observation. In this case, the concerned officials of the Insurance Corporation have not only been negligent and deficient in rendering the required services to the insured, but with a view to fraudulently depriving the consumers of their legitimate claims for the loss of their insured property, also indulged in the malpractice of manipulating the Insurance policy documents. This fraudulent manipulation committed by the officials has been found to be proved by the documentary evidence presented before us. This fraudulent manipulation committed by the officials has been found to be proved by the documentary evidence presented before us. We consider this a very serious matter and we would like to bring it to the notice of the Chairman of the General Insurance Corporation of India and suggest to him to take remedial action so that such glaring cases of negligence and malpractice do not occur in future. It is also necessary to bring this case to the notice of the Government so that they are made aware of the Unfair Practices and procedures that are being followed in the Insurance Companies of our Country. A copy of our order in this case shall be forwarded to the Chairman of the General Insurance Corporation of India and to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi for information and necessary action. We therefore......... pass the following order. Order All the 81 complaints are allowed. The Opposite party viz. The Oriental Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Branch office at Pen is directed to settle each complainants. Insurance claim for the amount of compensation shown in Column No. 5, and in case of complainants in complainant Nos. 337, 346, 349 354, 357, 359, 362, 372, 373, 378, 385, 387, 631, 634, 638, 645, 648 and 649 as shown in column No. 4 shown in the statement attached with this order. Attached statement shall form the part of this order. The amount of compensation shown in Col. No. 4 5, against the names of complainants indicated above shall carry interest by way of compensation at the Bank rate being charged to each of the complainant after re-scheduling of the loan account from 28-6-1990 till payment. The opposite party No. 1, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Pen - Panvel is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with interest mentioned above in the loan account of each complainant maintained in the Mahad Co. Op. Urban Bank Ltd., at Mahad. The opposite party No. 2, Mahad Co.Op. Urban Bank Ltd., Mahad after deducting the arrears of loan with simple interest shall refund the balance amount to each complainant within two weeks time after the receipt of the amount of Insurance claim 645, 648 and 649 as shown in column No. 4 shown in the statement attached with this order. Attached statement shall form the part of this order. Attached statement shall form the part of this order. The amount of compensation shown in Col. No. 4 5, against the names of complainants indicated above shall carry interest by way of compensation at the Bank rate being charged to each of the complainant after re-scheduling of the loan account from 28-6-1990 till payment. The opposite party No. 1, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Pen - Panvel is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with interest mentioned above in the loan account of each complainant maintained in the Mahad Co. Op. Urban Bank Ltd., at Mahad. The opposite party No. 2, Mahad Co.Op. Urban Bank Ltd., Mahad after deducting the arrears of loan with simple interest shall refund the balance amount to each complainant within two weeks time after the receipt of the amount of Insurance claim with compensation from opposite party No. 1, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office, Pen-Panvel. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Pen is also directed to pay Rs. 100/- towards cost to each complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order. The opposite party No. 1 is also directed to settle the aforesaid Insurance claims of each complainant as mentioned above within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Insurance claim shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realisation. A copy of this order be supplied to all complainants and opposite parties free of cost. Complaints allowed.