JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.2,54,38,311/- with interest pendent lite and future at the rate of 18% per annum. Costs of suit have also been claimed. 2. The plaintiff bank had purchased Bankers Indemnity Policies from the defendant during the years 2003-2004, 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 (for short the, ‘BIPs’). The plaintiff has claimed indemnification of Rs.2,52,494/- against the ‘BIP’ for the year 2003- 2004, Rs.46,28,604/- against the ‘BIP’ for the year 2006-2007 and Rs.1,56,36,000/- against the ‘BIP’ for the year 2007-2008 by alleging that one of its employees, namely, Visheshwar Lal Sanartu, while posted as In-charge of a Branch of plaintiff at village Taklech in District Shimla between 2003 and 2008 had indulged in mass irregularities, misappropriation, embezzlement and falsification of accounts, causing loss of aforesaid claimed amount to the Plaintiff. 3. It is averred that the plaintiff had purchased ‘BIP’ for the year 2002-2003 by paying a premium of Rs.1,98,600/- plus service tax at the rate Rs.9,930/- and had thereby insured a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-. Similar ‘BIPs’ had statedly been purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant for the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 by assuring a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- each on payment of requisite premium. 4. As per the plaintiff, the ‘BIPs’ purchased by it from the defendant covered the losses suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the dishonest or criminal act of any of its officer, clerk or employee with respect to money and/or securities wherever committed or whether committed directly or indirectly. 5. The plaintiff has alleged that one Visheshwar Lal Sanartu was an office assistant working in plaintiff bank and was posted as In-charge in one of the branches of the plaintiff at village Taklech in District Shimla from 2003 to 2008. The said official allegedly had committed various acts of irregularities, misappropriation, embezzlement and falsification of accounts. As per plaintiff some of the irregularities, misappropriation, embezzlement and falsification of accounts committed by Visheshwar Lal Sanartu had come to the notice of R. B. Rana, Branch Manager and he had reported the matters to the police on the basis of which FIRs Nos.81 and 82 dated 14.06.2008 were registered at Police Station, Rampur under Sections 420, 418, 408, 409, 463, 464 and 378 and 120-B IPC. The FIRs were stated to have been lodged with the allegations that Visheshwar Lal Sanartu had furnished unauthorized bank guarantees on behalf of the plaintiff bank for the benefit of private contractors; had charged less commission on demand issued in the name of plaintiff bank in favour of private contractors; had participated in forgery of documents; had affected illegal and unauthorized transactions/deductions from the accounts of consumers and had illegally routed funds to himself and his partners. 6. It is alleged by the plaintiff that in order to ascertain the actual loss sustained by the plaintiff bank on account of irregularities, misappropriation, embezzlement and falsification done by Visheshwar Lal Sanartu, a special audit of the Taklech branch was ordered. The audit report was submitted to the General Manager of the plaintiff bank on 07.07.2009. Thereafter, the loss suffered by the plaintiff bank was reported to the defendant on 01.09.2009. The plaintiff again statedly informed the defendant on 19.12.2009 regarding the actual loss sustained by it during the years 2003-2004, 2006-2007 & 2007-2008. It is alleged that the defendant did not respond. Reminders were sent by the plaintiff bank to defendant on 03.06.2010 and 25.08.2010. The defendant had responded on 31.08.2010 and had asked for the policy details, which were provided by the plaintiff bank. On 15.09.2010, the defendant had sent claim forms to the plaintiff bank, which were submitted by the plaintiff bank to the defendant on 09.12.2010. 7. It is further alleged that despite submission of claim forms by the plaintiff bank, the defendant did not take any positive action and finally rejected the claims on 10.03.2011. As per the plaintiff, grounds on which the claims were repudiated were flimsy. It is also the case of the plaintiff that before it could respond to the repudiation letters, the defendant unilaterally closed the claims submitted by the plaintiff on 28.03.2011. 8. The plaintiff allegedly issued legal notice dated 11.08.2011 to the defendant and having failed to secure redressal of its grievance, the plaintiff bank, in the first instance, approached Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. However, since the claim of the bank had already become time barred, in terms of Consumers Protection Act, the complaint was withdrawn and the instant suit was filed. 9. The defendant has filed written statement and has taken objections as to maintainability of the suit, valuation, estoppel, limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties. However, since the claim of the bank had already become time barred, in terms of Consumers Protection Act, the complaint was withdrawn and the instant suit was filed. 9. The defendant has filed written statement and has taken objections as to maintainability of the suit, valuation, estoppel, limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties. Objections have also been raised on the grounds that the plaintiff had remained negligent in discharging its duties and had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Bankers Indemnity Policy. It is alleged that the plaintiff bank has failed to get its Taklech branch audited annually from statutory auditors. 10. The factum of purchase of ‘BIPs’ by plaintiff from defendant for the years 2003-2004, 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 has not been denied. It is, however, stated that the risk of embezzlement, fraud, misappropriation and falsification of the bank was not covered. As per the defendant, the policy was effective w.e.f. 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 and it was not renewed. Another policy purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant for the year 2006-2007 was effective from 03.04.2006 to 02.04.2007 and was renewed for another year i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. 11. The defendant has also raised an objection that the plaintiff had not reproduced the complete terms and conditions of the policy intentionally. According to defendant, the terms and conditions of the policy supplied by it were in vogue and in terms of said policy the plaintiff was required to maintain dual control, which had not been done. 12. The averments in the plaint that Visheshwar Lal Sanartu had indulged in irregularities, misappropriation, embezzlement and falsification have been denied. It has been submitted that the plaintiff did not inform the defendant regarding any such act of omission or commission of Visheshwar Lal Sanartu within the time prescribed under the terms and conditions of the policy. No information was sent to the defendant regarding the registration of FIRs. It was on 01.09.2009 that the plaintiff had informed the defendant about the registration of FIR Nos.81 and 82 of 2008. The plaintiff bank was also accused of having remained silent till 19.12.2009 about the details of alleged embezzlements. 13. It is further alleged that the plaintiff bank was obligated to get the annual audit of its branches conducted from statutory auditors. Since, the plaintiff had not complied with its obligation, it was not entitled for any indemnification. 14. The plaintiff bank was also accused of having remained silent till 19.12.2009 about the details of alleged embezzlements. 13. It is further alleged that the plaintiff bank was obligated to get the annual audit of its branches conducted from statutory auditors. Since, the plaintiff had not complied with its obligation, it was not entitled for any indemnification. 14. It has further been submitted that the plaintiff was aware about the alleged embezzlements conducted by Visheshwar Lal Sanartu as the FIRs were recorded on 14.06.2008. On this account, it has been alleged that the plaintiff had failed to take appropriate action for considerable long time. The claim submitted by the plaintiff is also alleged to be vague having not specified the amount, date etc. 15. The receipt of notice sent by the plaintiff has been admitted, however, it has been maintained that no reply was called for as there were specific breaches of terms and conditions of the policy. 16. The plaintiff has filed replication. The contents of the written statement have been controverted and those of the plaint have been reiterated. It has been submitted that in March 2007 the Executive Engineers of various Divisions of Public Works Department had sent the bank guarantees issued from Taklech Branch for confirmation of General Manager of plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank had immediately responded to the Executive Engineers and had informed that the bank guarantees had been issued by the Branch Manager in violation of the procedure of the bank and the Rules. It is also averred that the matter was thereafter thoroughly inquired and its ramifications were discovered by finding that Visheshwar Lal Sanartu had indulged in mass irregularities. In such circumstances, the special audit was ordered besides initiation of disciplinary action against the delinquent official. The plaintiff bank was anticipating loss more than what was reported vide FIRs Nos.81 and 82 of 2008 and thus, a special audit through a team of six persons was ordered. 17. In the replication, the plaintiff made a specific denial to applicability of dual control clause. 18. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed vide order dated 04.11.2014: “1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,54,38,311/0 alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization as alleged? ...OPP 2) Whether the suit is not competent nor maintainable in the present form, as alleged? 18. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed vide order dated 04.11.2014: “1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,54,38,311/0 alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization as alleged? ...OPP 2) Whether the suit is not competent nor maintainable in the present form, as alleged? ...OPD 3) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction as alleged? ...OPD 4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own conduct, acts, deeds and acquiescence from filing the present suit in view of Section 69 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1968 as alleged? ...OPD 5) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action as alleged ...OPD 6) Whether plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Court as alleged? ...OPD 7) Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged? ...OPD 8) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? ...OPD 9) Whether plaintiff himself failed to adhere the terms and conditions of the Bankers Indemnity Policy as alleged? ...OPD 10) Whether plaintiff failed to get the branch audited annually by bank authority or by statutory auditors as alleged? If so its effect? ...OPD 11) Whether plaintiff is not entitled for amount of retroactive period of cover as per terms and conditions of the policy as alleged? ...OPD 12. Relief.” 19. Plaintiff has tried to prove its case by examining seven witnesses. They have also placed reliance on a number of documents. R.P. Nainta, the then General Manager of the Plaintiff Bank has appeared as PW-1. He has represented the plaintiff for the purposes of deposition on the basis of resolution of the plaintiff Society Ext.PW-1/A and General Power of Attorney Ext. PW-1/B. He also claimed to have drafted the plaint in his capacity as Senior Law Officer of the plaintiff bank. 20. Kuldeep Chand Verma, Senior Manager of Plaintiff Bank has appeared as PW-2 and has simply produced the copies of BIPs Ext. PW-2/A to PW-2/C besides certain other documents. 21. Karam Chand Additional SHO, Police Station Rampur Bushahar, District Shimla has appeared as PW-3 and has proved on record copies of FIR Nos. 81 and 82 of 2008 registered at Police Station Rampur Bushahar on 14.6.2008 as Ext. PW-2/A to PW-2/C besides certain other documents. 21. Karam Chand Additional SHO, Police Station Rampur Bushahar, District Shimla has appeared as PW-3 and has proved on record copies of FIR Nos. 81 and 82 of 2008 registered at Police Station Rampur Bushahar on 14.6.2008 as Ext. PW-3/A and PW- 3/B by production of original records of the Police Station. 22. PW-4, Bisheshwar Lal Sharma has proved document Ext. PW-4/A i.e. a copy of report of enquiry conducted by the then Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh against the delinquent officer V.L. Sanatu. 23. PW-5, Vijay Pal and PW-6, G.D. Chandel have been examined to prove the contents of communication dated 7.7.2009 Ext. PW-5/A and special audit report Ext. PW-5/B. 24. PW-6, Suresh Gupta has appeared to prove copies of communications relating to the matter in issue. 25. On the other hand, defendant in support of its case has produced its Assistant Manager DW-1 Ayush Negi as the sole witness. 26. My issue-wise findings are as under: Issue No.1 No Issue No.2 No Issue No.3 No Issue No.4 No Issue No.5 No Issue No.6 No Issue No.7 No Issue No.8 No Issue No.9 No Issue No.10 No Issue No.11 Yes Relief Suit Dismissed as per operative Part of the Judgment. Reasons for finding: Issues No.1, 9, 10 & 11 27. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion due to similarity in the facts relevant for adjudication. 28. Indisputably, the plaintiff had purchased the ‘PIBs’ Ext. PW-2/A, Ext. PW-2/B and Ext. PW-2/C for the periods 2003-2004, 2006-2007 & 2007-2008. The defendant had undertaken the liability to indemnify the plaintiff in respect of any direct loss of money and/or securities discovered and sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the dishonest or criminal act of its employee(s) with respect to the loss of money and/or securities wherever committed and whether committed singly or in connivance with others. 29. The plaintiff has placed on record copy of policy of insurance (‘BIP’) for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 along with its terms and conditions as Ext. PW-2/A; the policy for the year 2006-2007 has been produced as Ext. PW-2/B and the policy for the year 2007-2008 has been produced as Ext. PW-2/C. On the other hand, the defendant has placed on record the applicable terms and conditions of the policy as Mark D-2. PW-2/A; the policy for the year 2006-2007 has been produced as Ext. PW-2/B and the policy for the year 2007-2008 has been produced as Ext. PW-2/C. On the other hand, the defendant has placed on record the applicable terms and conditions of the policy as Mark D-2. The only difference in the terms and conditions of the policies placed by respective parties is with respect to addition of “Dual Control” clause in the Mark D-2. 30. The plaintiff is seeking indemnification for the losses allegedly suffered by it on account of acts of omission and commission of its employee, V.L. Sanatu, during the insured period of 2003-04, 2006-07 and 2006-08. The plaintiff has based its claim on the BIPs Ext. PW-2/A to PW-2/C. According to plaintiff, the suit claims are duly covered under the aforesaid policies. 31. On the other hand, repudiation letters dated 10.03.2011 Ext. PW-1/R to PW-1/S reveal following three reasons for repudiation: (i) Some of the claims were inadmissible on account of “excess clause”; (ii) other claims were inadmissible due to negligence and lack of ‘Dual Control’; (iii) In addition, the claim under policy Ext. PW-2/A for the year 2003-04 was inadmissible on account of retroactive period of cover i.e. losses not discovered within six calendar months from next following the date of expiry of policy were not payable. 32. Thus, the core of controversy lies in the terms and conditions of PIBs. 33. None of the parties has led any credible evidence to prove the terms and conditions on which the policies were purchased by the plaintiff. Neither the terms and conditions supplied by the plaintiff nor the terms and conditions supplied by the defendant bear signatures of the parties. No witness has been examined by either side in whose presence the contracts of insurance were entered. 34. The claim under Policy Ext. PW-2/A has been repudiated by defendant vide repudiation letter dated 10.03.2011 Ext. PW-1/R for the reasons that claims at serial numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 were hit by excess clause and the claims at serial numbers 6 and 23 were inadmissible due to negligence and lack of ‘Dual Control’. Similarly, the policy Ext. PW- 2/B was repudiated vide repudiation letter Ext. Similarly, the policy Ext. PW- 2/B was repudiated vide repudiation letter Ext. PW-1/S on the ground that the majority of claims were hit by the excess clause and remaining were not payable due to negligence and lack of “Dual Control”. The policy Ext. PW-2/C was also repudiated on the similar grounds vide repudiation letter Ext. PW-1/T. In addition, the policy Ext. PW-2/A was repudiated on the ground that the alleged loss had occurred in the year 2003-2004 and its intimation was sent on 25.08.2010 hence, the retroactive period of cover i.e. losses not discovered within six calendar months from the next following the date of expiry of policy were not payable. 35. There is no dispute between the parties with respect to existence of “Excess Clause” in BIPs PW-2/A to PW-2/C, therefore, it will be expedient in the first instance to examine the dispute in light of said clause which reads as under: “Excess: Insured shall bear first 25% of each loss under items ‘A’ to ‘E’ or 2% of the basic Sum insured whichever is higher, but, not exceeding Rs.50,000/-. Each loss in respect of each dishonest or criminal act shall be treated as a separate Loss. This Excess will however not apply to loss or damage arising out of Fire, Riot & Strike, Burglary and House-breaking risks in respect of items F, G & H of the Policy (ie Registered Postal Sendings Appraisers and Janta Agent etc.) the deductible applicable will be 25% of the Claim amount.” 36. The excess clause as noticed above absolved the defendant from liability to pay first 25% of each loss under items A to E of the policy or 2% of the basic sum insured whichever was higher but not exceeding Rs.50,000/-. Meaning thereby that a loss having value up to Rs.50,000/- was not liable to be indemnified by the defendant. It was also a clear stipulation that each loss arising out of each dishonest or criminal act would be treated as a separate loss. 37. The plaintiff has submitted its claims to the defendant on the basis of special audit report Ext. PW-5/B, though, the details of claims presented by the plaintiff to the defendant along with claim forms have not been produced on record of instant case, yet by looking into the contents of special audit report and references made in repudiation letters Ext. PW-1/R, Ext. PW-1/S and Ext. PW-5/B, though, the details of claims presented by the plaintiff to the defendant along with claim forms have not been produced on record of instant case, yet by looking into the contents of special audit report and references made in repudiation letters Ext. PW-1/R, Ext. PW-1/S and Ext. PW- 1/T to the serial number of claims, imply that the claims were submitted by the plaintiff in terms of the contents of the special audit report Ext. PW-5/B. Since, the claims preferred by the plaintiff, which have been denied by the defendant under the excess clause, were less than the amount of Rs.50,000/-, the repudiation by the defendant of such claims cannot be said to be bad in law. 38. Further, as per repudiation letter Ext. PW-1/R, the claim submitted by the plaintiff for the losses allegedly incurred during the year 2003-2004 was not admissible on account of exception carved out in the policy for retroactive period of cover. 39. It is the case of the plaintiff itself that the actual losses were discovered from the report dated 07.07.2009 of Special Audit Ext. PW-5/B. 40. The clause dealing with retroactive period of cover available in the policy of insurance providing coverage for the year 2003-2004 reads as under: “(c) RETRO-ACTIVE PERIOD OF COVER : The Company shall not be liable (i) for losses not discovered within the period of this insurance (ii) in the event of non-renewal or cancellation of this Policy, for losses not discovered within six calendar months next following the date of expiry or the date of cancellation as the case may be (provided only that if there by any other insurance in force during the said six calendar months whethr effected by the Insured or otherwise this policy shall not cover or contribate to any loss covered by such other insurance). The Reinstatement provision will not apply to such losses discovered within six calendar months from the date of non-renewal or cancelleation. (iii) for losses not sustained within a retroactive period not exceeding 2 years form the date of discovery of any such loss or losses. Provided that in such retroactive period the Insurance was continuously in force but in no event the Company shall be liable to pay any claim in respect of a loss or damage sustained prior to the Inception of the original Policy. Provided that in such retroactive period the Insurance was continuously in force but in no event the Company shall be liable to pay any claim in respect of a loss or damage sustained prior to the Inception of the original Policy. Further provided that losses which become payable under this clause shall be subject to the terms conditions exceptions of the Policy currently in force on the date of discovery .” 41. As per the admission made by the plaintiff, it had not been able to discover any loss coverable under the policy of insurance Ext.PW-2/A within six months next following the date of expiry. It is not in dispute that the policy Ext. PW-2/A had expired on 31.03.2004 and it had not been renewed. In this view of the matter, the claim of the plaintiff for the year 2003-2004 has rightly been rejected by the defendant. 42. A number of claims of the plaintiff have been rejected and repudiated by defendant vide letters Ext. PW-1/R, Ext.PW-1/S and Ext. PW-1/T on the ground that the conduct of the plaintiff was non-compliant for want of establishment and maintenance of “Dual Control” system. 43. Though, the defendant has pressed into service the dual control clause, it will not be incorrect to observe that the existence of any such clause has not been proved on record. The document Mark D-2 is just a photocopy without any proof that the parties had agreed on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. It does not bear any acknowledgement of the plaintiff. As noticed above, “PIBs” Ext. PW-2/A, Ext. PW-2/B and Ext. PW-2/C, there was no such clause, however, in the copy of terms and conditions produced by defendant as Mark D-2 one of the conditions precedent to liability has been mentioned as under: “CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO LIABILITY It is a condition precedent to any liability under this Policy that the Insured shall comply in all material respect with the following: A manual of instructions covering the procedure for money and/or securities shall be kept on the premises. Joint custody shall be established and maintained for the safeguarding of: (i) money and/or securities while in safe or vaults (ii) all keys to safes and vaults, and (iii) codes, cyphers and test keys. Joint custody shall be established and maintained for the safeguarding of: (i) money and/or securities while in safe or vaults (ii) all keys to safes and vaults, and (iii) codes, cyphers and test keys. Joint Custody means the handling of the above in the presence of or under the observation of at least one other person, such person being equally accountable for the Physical protection and safeguarding of the various security items including money locks and combinations in vaults and safes must be so arranged that no one person can open them alone. Dual Control shall be established and maintained for the handling of: (i) All types of securities, negotiable and non- negotiable instruments and unissued and blank forms of said items. ii) The reserve supply of official cheques, drafts and unissued travellers cheques. (iii) Dormant accounts of depositors. (iv) Codes, cyphers and text keys. (Dual Control means the work of one person in processing transaction being verified by a second person and both sharing the accountability). There should be job rotation for employee handling money and/or securities. In addition to the normal audit of books of account of the business by the Insured's statutory auditor there shall be a review of internal controls atleast once in two financial years at all premises. Premises including Insured's computer centres and facilities, at which the business is carried on and shall retain the cards relating to such review.” 44. Assuming that the aforesaid clause was part of contract of insurance between the parties, in my considered view, even then the said clause could not have been made applicable in the case of the claims submitted by the plaintiff. It provides for establishment and maintenance of “Dual Control” for handling of all types of securities, negotiable and non-negotiable instruments; unissued and blank forms of said items; reserve supply of official cheques drafts and unissued traveler cheques; dormant accounts of depositors and codes, cyphers and text keys. In the instant case, the plaintiff has alleged that loss has been caused to the bank by the acts of misappropriation, embezzlement and falsification of records etc. As per plaintiff, Visheshwar Lal Sanartu had overreached his power to issue bank guarantees, letters of demand and had also misappropriated the amounts by defalcation. In the instant case, the plaintiff has alleged that loss has been caused to the bank by the acts of misappropriation, embezzlement and falsification of records etc. As per plaintiff, Visheshwar Lal Sanartu had overreached his power to issue bank guarantees, letters of demand and had also misappropriated the amounts by defalcation. Thus, from the averments made by the plaintiff, none of the acts of omission and commission on part of Visheshwar Lal Sanartu would fall under any of aforesaid categories for which dual control was required. 45. The repudiation letters Ext. PW-1/R, Ext. PW-1/S and Ext. PW-1/T also make mention about the repudiation of claims of plaintiff on account of negligence. However, there is no specific evidence produced by the defendant to establish such fact. Rather, it has come on record that the annual audits were being conducted. The fact that the alleged defalcations of record were not detected cannot be a lone ground to infer negligence on the part of plaintiff bank. 46. Viewed from another angle also the plaintiff cannot be held entitled for recovery of suit amount for the reason that the sole basis for the claim made by the plaintiff is special audit report Ext. PW-5/B. It mentions about the losses suffered by the bank due to acts of misappropriation, embezzlement and falsification of records etc. of Visheshwar Lal Sanartu. The question, however, is whether the contents of Ext. PW-5/B can be said to have been proved by mere exhibition of the document. The signatories of Ext. PW-5/B have appeared in the witness box as PW-5 and PW-6. They have not been able to substantiate the contents of Ext. PW-5/B by producing substantive evidence for proof of contents thereof. Document Ext. PW-5/A is the forwarding letter dated 07.07.2009 through which the incharge Audit Section (HO, Kasumpti of plaintiff bank) had submitted the copies of proof regarding the irregularities/losses caused to the bank by Visheshwar Lal Sanatu from the year 2003-2004 to 2007-2008. The said letter clearly mentions that the Audit Section had not retained any photocopy of proofs. None of the documents alleged to be proofs of irregularities and losses caused to the bank by alleged acts of Visheshwar Lal Sanartu have been placed on record by the bank. No details of the documents termed as proofs in Ext. PW-5/A has been provided. Ext. None of the documents alleged to be proofs of irregularities and losses caused to the bank by alleged acts of Visheshwar Lal Sanartu have been placed on record by the bank. No details of the documents termed as proofs in Ext. PW-5/A has been provided. Ext. PW-5/B is only a tabulated form of details of year wise net loss allegedly caused to the bank as prepared by the special audit team. As the entries made in the aforesaid tabulated form have not been proved in accordance with law, no reliance can be placed on such entries. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove any loss suffered by it during the subsistence of “PIBs” Ext. PW-2/A, which was a sine qua non for passing of decree in favour of the plaintiff. 47. As per the BIPs, the defendant had agreed to indemnify the plaintiff to the extent specified therein, if at any time during the period of insurance the insured discovered any direct loss of money and/or securities sustained. The discovery of direct loss of money and/or securities will imply actual loss, if any, suffered by the insured. The discovery of loss has to be read so as to mean the loss actually caused to the insured. The plaintiff has failed to prove the loss. Mere exhibition of Ext. PW-5/B will not be sufficient for plaintiff to discharge the burden. 48. Thus, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the claim in the suit against defendant. 49. In light of above discussion, though it cannot be held that plaintiff itself had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the BIPs and had also failed to get the Taklech branch audited annually by bank authority or by statutory auditors, however, it stands duly proved that plaintiff is not entitled for amount of retroactive period of cover as per terms and conditions of the policy Ext PW-2/A. Issue No.4 50. Defendant has taken an objection that the plaintiff had initiated surcharge proceedings against Visheshwar Lal Sanatu and thus, the amount, if any, recovered from him was not liable for indemnification by the defendant. However, the defendant has not produced any evidence to prove the amount, if any, recovered by the Bank from V.L. Sanatu, therefore, the issue is decided against the defendant. Issues No.2, 3, 5 & 6 51. However, the defendant has not produced any evidence to prove the amount, if any, recovered by the Bank from V.L. Sanatu, therefore, the issue is decided against the defendant. Issues No.2, 3, 5 & 6 51. In view of findings rendered on issues No.1 and 9 to 11, the suit is maintainable. The plaintiff has cause of action and nothing has been found on record amounting to suppression of material facts by plaintiff. The suit has properly been valued and the Court fee has also been affixed accordingly. Issue No.7 52. The plaint was instituted on 09.12.2013. The defendant had repudiated the claims of the plaintiff vide repudiation letters Ext. PW-1/R, Ext. PW-1/S and Ext. PW-1/T dated 10.03.2011. Thus, the suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Issue No.8 53. The defendant has neither placed any material on record nor has otherwise shown as to how the suit was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Relief: 54. In view of findings rendered above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed without any order as to costs. 55. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.