JUDGEMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the opposite party. 2. The Petitioners all five in number are working in the Oriental Insurance Company, Limited as Manager at the center, in different offices of the company. The opposite party No. 2 JMD Foot Wear Private Limited is a business undertaking which had taken loan from the Bank and set up a shop for sale of Shoes known as "Khadims". It is alleged in the complaint petition that the Petitioners 4 and 5 persuaded the opposite party No. 2 to take the insurance from its company. The Petitioner took insurance policy covering, burglary which is Annexure-2 to this application. The document is admitted by both the parties. In between the night of 21st and 22nd of February, 2003, a burglary was committed in the shop of opposite party No. 2. The F.I.R. was instituted on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 and a search was made and final form was submitted against unknown persons. 3. The Petitioner opposite party No. 2 raised his claim for payment of insurance amount from the company of the Petitioners. The company paid the amount which was the loss suffered by opposite party No. 2 on account of stocks stolen during the burglary. The opposite party -complainant is aggrieved by the fact that the Petitioners, who are the officers of the Insurance Company, refused to make payment of Rs. 91,000/- and odd which was stolen by the miscreants lying in the cash box of the shop. For the purpose of search the Oriental Insurance Company had appointed a surveyor to enquire into the mater. The Surveyor enquired into the matter, and reported that since the money stolen, was from the cash box, and not the safe as defined under insurance policy, the Petitioners were not liable to pay the insurance amount. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioners that Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Samayanallur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank has already defined the meaning of the word Safe. According to the judgment of the Supreme Court the cashier table/drawer could not be said to be a safe within the meaning of the Insurance policy. Nonetheless, it is not disputed by the Insurance Company that burglary was committed and the cash amount of Rs. According to the judgment of the Supreme Court the cashier table/drawer could not be said to be a safe within the meaning of the Insurance policy. Nonetheless, it is not disputed by the Insurance Company that burglary was committed and the cash amount of Rs. 91,000/- was lying in the safe of the shop of opposite party No. 2, however, the Insurance Company refused to pay the insurance amount for the cash amount stolen. Non payment of Insurance amount according to the counsel for the Petitioner does not constitute a criminal offence in the facts stated aforesaid. As far as the allegation under Section 406/420 and 120 B is concerned, this Court comes to the conclusion, on the facts of this case, no allegations are made out to constitute an offence or even prima facie indicate there was any intention on behalf of the Petitioners to misappropriate the complainants money or to convert it into their own use or for their benefit. The proper forum for the Petitioner in this matter, in fact, was to move the consumers Court. In case the Petitioner files an application for payment the insurance amount, the District Consumers Forum should entertain the complaint, after considering that the delay in filing the compliant was due to fact that the Petitioner was perusing the matter in a different forum. 5. In the result the order dated 9.10.2004 passed in complaint case No. 1555 (C) of 2004 (T.R. No. 1996 of 2004) is quashed and the application is allowed.