ORDER K.S. Gupta, Member-Prayer clause of the complaint which is material, reads thus: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to pass damages as follows: (a) Loss of goods being 4300 bags of dry fish due to flood in river Savitri on 18-8-1987/19-8-1987 Rs. 52,00,000.00 (b) Interest from 18-8-1987 to 17-8-2005 @ 12% on the principle amount of Rs. 52 lakhs. Rs. 1,12,32,000.00 (c) Cost of the proceedings and other legal expenses. Rs. 1,00,000.00 (d)(Plus future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 18-8-2005 till realization of the amount of the decree) (e) grant any other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper”. 2. Complaint has been filed, inter alia, alleging that M/ s. Ibrahim Ahmed Taj & co.-O.P. no. 2, now represented by Akil Ibrahim Taj, was engaged in purchase and sale of dry fishes at Mahad, Raigad District, Maharashtra. O.P. no. 2 had three godown nos. 2694B & A, 2691C and 2703-B where dry fishes were used to be stored. O.P. no. 2 took three policies also covering the risk against flood of Rs. 30 lakhs, 10 lakhs and 15 lakhs. Currency of these policies was from 253-1987 to 25-3-1988. It was stated that in the early hours of 19-8-1987 because of heavy flood and rain the water level rose upto 3-4 ft. high above the ground level of said three godowns. Dry fishes being sensitive to water started stinking. Under the direction and supervision of the officials of Mahad Municipal Council, dry fishes stored in three godowns were removed in trucks and thrown into river Savitri. on being intimated of the damage the opposite party no.1-Insurance Co. appointed a surveyor on 7-9-1987 who assessed loss at Rs. 52 lakhs. However, O.P. no. 1 repudiated the claim made by O.P. no. 2 on 27-5-1990. It was further alleged that for carrying on business the O.P. no. 2 had been granted various credit facilities amounting to Rs. 54 lakhs by Sangli Bank Ltd. through its Mahad Branch. Bank instituted various proceedings for recovery of loan amount against O.P. no.2. Since O.P. no. 2 was not in a position to repay the loan amount, it approached the complainant for repayment of loan amount to Sangli Bank Ltd. Under a Tripatite agreement dated 9-6-1992 between Sangli Bank Ltd., complainant and O.P. no. 2 the complainant paid an amount of Rs. Since O.P. no. 2 was not in a position to repay the loan amount, it approached the complainant for repayment of loan amount to Sangli Bank Ltd. Under a Tripatite agreement dated 9-6-1992 between Sangli Bank Ltd., complainant and O.P. no. 2 the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 43 lakhs to Sangli Bank Ltd. Under the said agreement actionable claims were also transferred in favour of complainant by O.P. no. 2. It was also alleged that Ibrahim Taj based on three insurance policies filed O.P. no. 190/1992 in this Commission. Though Ibrahim Taj during his lifetime kept the complainant informed about the development in said complaint case but after his death in November, 1999 his legal representatives did not take much interest. This Commission disposed of the complaint with direction to O.P. no. I-Insurance Co. to pay compensation of Rs. 13 lakhs in full and final settlement by the Court. an ground of legal representative of Ibrahim Ahmad Taj was not pursuing the matter before this Commission and the Supreme Court in collusion with O.P. no. l-Insurnace ca. this complaint has been filed claiming the aforementioned reliefs. I have heard Shri Sukumar Pattjoshi for complainant on admission. 3. As may be seen from the averments made in complaint, the complaint is based on aforesaid three policies of Rs. 30 lakhs, and 15 lakhs purchased by the O.P. no.2 from O.P. no. 1 and based whereupon O.P. no. 190/92 was filed by O.P. no. 2 against O.P. No. I-Insurance Co. which was disposed of by this Commission by the order dated 8-9-2000 awarding compensation of Rs. 13.lakhs in full and final settlement to O.P. no. 2. Appeal filed by the O.P. no. 2 against that order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Again based on same three policies, a fresh complaint would not be maintainable and present complaint, thus, deserves to be dismissed on that ground Dismissed as such. Complainant may seek remedy for recovery of the amounts due to it form O.P. on. 1 as may be permissible under the law. Complaint dismissed.