Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member Respondent no.3- Saraswat Bank absent though notice was sent. Admittedly, one Phaoemulsification Headpiece DPS020 bearing Sr.No.44544 came to be insured with the appellant/O.P.no.1. When it became non-functional or became out of order, insurance claim in respect thereof was made. It was repudiated on the ground that the instrument placed at the residence of O.P.no.1 was only insured and not the one placed at dispensary. Hence the consumer complaint was filed. It was settled against the appellant/O.P.no.1-Insurance company and consumer complaint stood dismissed as against original O.P.nos.2 & 3. Feeling aggrieved thereby Insurance company preferred this appeal. Only point that is raised before us that the property which is insured, was the one at the residence of complainant and not of his dispensary and, therefore, since the property used at the dispensary of O.P.no.1 was not covered by the insurance policy, repudiation of the insurance claim was proper. Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant also referred to us documents where the insured name is shown as Dr.Chandrashekhar Ranade i.e. complainant. His address is given as Charkop, Kandivali(west), Mumbai, Maharashtra. His address has nothing to do with the property i.e. machine in question. More important is the endorsement made on the policy particularly, identifying the property as to one under lien with O.P.no.3-Saraswat Co-op.Bank Ltd. There is no dispute with the property in respect of which insurance claim is made is under lien with O.P.no.3- Saraswat Co-op.Bank Ltd. Therefore, it is not that property in respect of which insurance claim was made is different than the one insured. No other point is raised. Under the circumstances we find appeal devoid of any substance and, hence, the order:- ORDER Appeal is not admitted and stands rejected. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
