ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an original complaint by Mr. Aan Singh Thapa, R/o Village Vikas Samiti, Ward No. 8, Chhapani, Darchula, Nepal against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for recovery of Rs. 6,12,631/-, the loss suffered by the complainant due to theft in his shop, which was insured with the opposite parties along with interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is carrying on business of selling wine, etc in Village Vikas Samiti, Ward No. 8, Chhapani, Darchula, Nepal. The complainant has got a shopkeepers’ insurance policy on 24th August, 2001 from the Kashipur Office of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite parties received a sum of Rs. 6,300/- as premium and the cover note was issued on 24.8.2001. On 30.8.2001 the shopkeepers’ insurance policy was issued. The complainant has insured his shop against burglary and house-breaking as well for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- besides insurance for other purposes. In the night of 1.9.2001 some unknown people had broken into the shop of the complainant and had sabotaged and stolen the wine and fridge lying in the shop worth Rs. 9,63,510/- and cash amounting to Rs. 16,700/-. The details of the loss are given in Annexure 1 of the complaint. It is said that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 9,80,210/- in Nepal currency, equivalent to Rs. 6,12,631/- in the Indian Currency.The police complaint was lodged and the complainant has also informed the Kashipur Branch of the opposite party No.1 on telephone and information was given to the opposite party in writing on 17.9.2001 by registered post. There was no response. No surveyor was sent. On 22.10.2001 the complainant issued a legal notice through his Counsel calling the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 6,12,631.125/-. The opposite parties issued for the first time reply on 1.12.2001 that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. It was informed that the insurance company has cancelled the policy from the very beginning. Intimation of the cancellation of the policy was never given to the complainant, nor the complainant ever knew about and cancellation. The opposite parties have got no right to cancel the policy unilaterally ex parte. The premium has never been refunded to the complainant. 3. The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the complainant is a resident of Nepal. The opposite parties have got no right to cancel the policy unilaterally ex parte. The premium has never been refunded to the complainant. 3. The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the complainant is a resident of Nepal. The business place of the complainant is in Nepal. The alleged insurance place is in Nepal. The alleged accident took place in Nepal. The complainant alleged that the has suffered loss in Nepal, therefore, the Consumer Protection Act shall not apply. It is alleged that the services are in respect of commercial purposes, hence the Consumer Protection Act shall not apply. The valuation of the complanant is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-, therefore the complaint shall not lie before the State Commission. It is further alleged that the policy has been cancelled from the date of inception. The opposite party has returned the premium along with intimation of cancellation of the policy to the complainant through registered letter. The opposite party does not owe any liability. The theft is denied. The loss is denied. The notice of the complainant has been replied. It is alleged that the investigation by the police has got no meaning. There is no deficiency in service of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties have filed evidence in support of their contentions. We shall discuss the evidence at relevant places but in our view the case of the complainant is not proved because it requires elaborate evidence. However on legal points, the Commission has got jurisdiction because the insurance company is situated in Uttaranchal. Its office is in Uttaranchal. The insurance has been done in Uttaranchal. The cancellation order has been passed in Uttaranchal. If Nepali citizens, Nepali shop, Nepali property are not to be insured in India, the insurance company should not have insured it. The complainant has not suppressed his address, etc. and knowing fully well the facts, the insurance has been done. For the purposes of insurance, Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan are considered to be in the territory of India and the insurance company is entitled to make insurance in the entire territory of India. 5. As regards the commercial purposes, it has now been clearly decided by the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 159 of 2004, M/s. Harsolia Motors v. M/s. National Insurance Co. 5. As regards the commercial purposes, it has now been clearly decided by the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 159 of 2004, M/s. Harsolia Motors v. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., First Appeal No. 160 of 2004, M/s Diwakar Goiram Porkhayat v. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and First Appeal No. 161 of 2004, M/s. Tractor House v. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 3rd December, 2001 that the insurance is never for commercial purposes, it is only for purposes of indemnity. 6. It is alleged that the policy has been cancelled from inception. The intimation is said to have been sent by registered letter. There is no evidence of any registration. It is also there in the insurance policy that the policy can be cancelled only after giving seven days notice to the complainant. It means that if the policy has been issued, it can be cancelled only after hearing the complainant. There is no evidence that the compainant has been heard. 7. No investigator/surveyor whatsoever has been appointed by the insurance company and, therefore, we cannot say with accuracy whether there was any theft or not. What is the value of the property alleged to have been stolen? What was the actual loss to the complainant? This part of evidence is not there with the opposite party. 8. At any rate it is the complainant who has to prove his case and to prove his case, the complainant has alleged that he got the insurance on 24.8.2001. On 30.8.2001 the policy was received and just in the night of 1.9.2002 there was theft. Only 2 days have passed. 9. According to the terms of the policy, the complainant has to lodge a report to the police and will make efforts to get the culprits arrested and the property recovered turant means turant. There is nothing in the record to show that any FIR was lodged the same day or the other day. There is nothing on the record to show that any chik report was prepared by the police station. Only in the list of documents at No. 3, it is written photocopy of information given to police. It reads, “To the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Distt. Headquarter Darchula, Nepal, Sub: In Reference to sabotage of high quality wine depot shop”. Sabotage does not come into theft. 10. Only in the list of documents at No. 3, it is written photocopy of information given to police. It reads, “To the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Distt. Headquarter Darchula, Nepal, Sub: In Reference to sabotage of high quality wine depot shop”. Sabotage does not come into theft. 10. It is written on 1.9.2001 some unknown people broke into wine depot in the night and sabotaged and stole wine as well as fridge of worth total Rs. 9,36,510/- along with cash of Rs. 16,700/-. I have attached the list of lost and stolen goods and cash. This letter is of what date is not clear. Something 2058/5/17 has been written. It is not clear what is the date. No paper has been filed to show whether this was actually despatched or not. Whether it was sent by registered post or UPC? Whether it was personally handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and if it was so what did the Deputy Superintendent of Police do? No evidence has been filed that any investigation was made. Nothing has been said that any person has been arrested or not. Nothing has been said that anything was recovered or not. Nothing has been said whether final report has been filed or not? Some charge sheet has been filed against anybody. Therefore, this type of letter without proof of despatch, without proof of investigation or result is meaningless. In the complaint also it is not written when the information was given to the police. The chik report, FIR, etc. have not been filed. The question is of the immediate information to the insurance company. In para 7 of the complaint, it is said that the opposite party was given information immediately on telephone. The proof of making telephone from PCO has not been filed. No receipt of PCO has been filed. No paper has been filed to show that the telephone was received by which officer of the insurance company. Then after 16 days information was given to the insurance company on 17.9.2001 and the information is that “(Hindi matter omitted).” There is nothing to show in this information that any paper of the police report, etc. was sent to the insurance company. In the policy, it is specifically written that the policy-holder shall give immediate notice of the theft, etc. to the insurance company. was sent to the insurance company. In the policy, it is specifically written that the policy-holder shall give immediate notice of the theft, etc. to the insurance company. There is no proof of immediate notice and letter dated 17.9.2001 cannot be said to be immediate notice. It is provided in the policy that within 14 days, the complainant shall lodge his claim with the insurance company along with all evidence. There is nothing to show that claim has been lodged within 14 days along with evidence. 11. Then there is notice of the complainant dated 22.10.2001. In this notice it is written that the complainant lodged the FIR with zila prahree karyalay darthula, Nepal. The copy of the said FIR is not on the record. Then it is written that information was given to the insurance company in writing, orally and on telephone. We have already told that there is nothing regarding telephone, who was verbally informed, who had verbally informed is not there in this notice and written information is only after 15-16 days, by which time any investigation by the insurance company may be meaningless. 12. Then a list of stolen articles has been filed. We do not know whether any law is there in Nepal or not but at least in India receipt of purchase, receipt of sale, stock register, excise duty, etc. paper’s as well as tax-papers are maintained. No paper whatsoever has been filed here. A list has been given. The complainant was free to tell it worth Rs. 1.00 lac or 1.00 crore or any amount, he desired. At least there is nothing on record to show that police has arrested any person or recovered any amount or any paper was shown to the police. 13. Reliance has been placed on the certificate of a Police Inspector. It is fantastic that information is said to have been given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police but the certificate has been issued by Inspector of Police. 13. Reliance has been placed on the certificate of a Police Inspector. It is fantastic that information is said to have been given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police but the certificate has been issued by Inspector of Police. The certificate dated 20.3.2002 after more than 6 months of the theft is, “This is certified that after detail spot investigation, some unknown person had fully damaged the depot and godown of the high quality liquor of Aan Singh Thapa and damaged the refrigerator and stolen the cash which was in the cash box of the depot.” According to this certificate the godown and depot liquor was damaged and what was stolen was only cash box. There is nothing in this certificate who has made investigation, what is the result of investigation, which witness was examined, who has inspected the shop? There is nothing in this certificate that this Mr. Janak Raj Panday, Police Inspector who has given the certificate has inspected the shop. No paper of any case diary has been filed. This certificate, therefore, appears to be meaningless. Not even a single word has been said in this certificate that this is the Police Inspector who has investigated the case and if he investigated, he could arrest anybody, he could recover anything. 14. There is no other evidence of the complaint except a bare affidavit. It is true that the insurance company has also contested the case leisurely and they are equally negligent. Even if they had to concel the policy, they should have given 7 days’ notice to the complainant. There is also nothing on the record to show that this cancellation order was sent by registered post. The receipt of postage or A.D. has not been filed and even if they had cancelled the policy, as an alternative measure they could have sent some investigator or surveyor to know whether there was any actual theft or not but merely because the insurance company has slept over the matter, in the absence of any evidence as discussed above, we are unable to allow the complaint. 15. There is nothing in the complaint or evidence that any howkidar was kept, any guard was kept or the complainant took any care to protect and safeguard the property. It is specifically mentioned in the policy that the insured shall take every precaution to safeguard the property from theft or damage. 15. There is nothing in the complaint or evidence that any howkidar was kept, any guard was kept or the complainant took any care to protect and safeguard the property. It is specifically mentioned in the policy that the insured shall take every precaution to safeguard the property from theft or damage. There is no evidence that it has been done. Besides there is also nothing in the record to show the mode of theft or destruction. How the liquor worth Rs. 6,12,631/- in Indian currency was stolen? Whether it was taken in bus or in car or truck or any other vehicle. At least liquor of such a huge value cannot be shifted on head. There is no evidence to show that there was any investigation in this light and if it was so, what was the result thereof. 16. There may be theft, there may be damage, there may be destruction, there may be FIR, there may be investigation, there may be recovery, there might have been arrest, a charge-sheet of final report might have been filed but we are unable to say anything about all these papers. Elaborate and detailed evidence is necessary. The complainant should be examined to prove his case and to say the actual position in the Court. Every supporting evidence should also be produced. A suspicion was created that actually this is a terrorist activity but instead of telling a terrorist activity, the complainant has started to tell it theft. He has also written it sabotage and destruction. We are unable to give any finding on this plea as well. Elaborate evidence is required. 17. We do not find any reason to allow the complaint merely because the insurance company has not faithfully performed its part of obligations. The complainant should prove his case to get the relief. This can be done only by elaborate inquiry and evidence in the Civil Court. ORDER The complaint is hereby dismissed, Cost easy. The complainant is at liberty to file a suit in the Civil Court and in case such a suit is filed, the observations made by us shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on any of the points involved in the case. Complaint dismissed. –––