Manoj Misra JUDGMENT
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. This petition seeking leave to appeal Under Article 136 of the Constitution is at the instance of M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Original Appellant before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the NCDRC') in the First Appeal No. 376 of 2016 by which the NCDRC dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner herein thereby affirming the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the SCDRC') of Delhi, holding that the Respondent No. 1 /complainant was entitled to receive the claim amount and appropriate compensation from the Petitioner and its joint venture partner viz. Allahabad Bank (Respondent No. 2) for the goods stolen from the premises in question.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. It appears from the materials on record that the Respondent Bank, acting as an intermediary issued a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy dated 05.12.2011 in favour of the complainant through the Petitioner herein. Similarly, a Burglary Insurance Policy was also issued in favour of the complainant dated 08.12.2011. Both the policies covered a sum of Rs. 50 lakh for the risk of fire and burglary. The policies were for the period between 25.11.2011 and 24.11.2012.
3. By way of letter dated 28.03.2012, the complainant informed the Respondent Bank that the construction of his new premises at Bawana, Delhi had been completed and he had transferred his stock to the above premises situated in Bawana from the premises situated in Rajgarh Ext., Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. In this letter the complainant had also instructed the Bank to inform the Petitioner.
4. The Respondent Bank acknowledged the aforesaid intimation and claims to have informed the Petitioner by way of letter dated 31.03.2012. The Bank claims to have also forwarded the letter dated 28.03.2012 of the complainant to the Petitioner.
5. On 29.06.2012, a theft took place at the Bawana premises and for that FIR No. 213/2012 was lodged on 30.06.2012 at the PS Bawana. Both, the Petitioner and the Bank were also informed about the theft. A surveyor was appointed by the Petitioner to inspect the premises and on 01.07.2012, a formal complaint was lodged by the complainant with the Petitioner.
6. After the theft, the complainant informed that a fire had also broken out in the premises at Bawana on 18.10.2012, and the status report in that regard was issued by the fire department. Subsequently, the complainant filed claims for both, theft and fire amounting to Rs. 49 lakh. The Petitioner repudiated the theft claim vide letter dated 22.08.2013 and the fire claim was closed on account of non-submission of documents by the complainant.
7. On 03.06.2013, the complainant aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Petitioner approached the SCDRC, Delhi Under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act 1986'), by way of Complaint No. 357/2013. He prayed for his claim of Rs. 49 lakh to be processed along with compensation of Rs. 20 lakh and interest at the rate the Respondent Bank was charging from the complainant, with costs of the complaint.
8. By order dated 18.03.2016, the SCDRC partly allowed the compla........