This order will govern the disposal of R.P. No. 10 of 2010 filed by the opposite party- Insurance Co. and R.P. No. 848 of 2010 filed by the complainant against the same order dated 27.7.2009 of the State Commission Uttrakhand, Dehradun.  The State Commission had set aside the order dated 27.7.2007 of a District Forum whereby complaint was dismissed and directed the opposite party- Insurance co. to pay Rs. 1,55,000/- together with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint and cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.

          Truck bearing registration No. WB-41-7123 was insured with the opposite party – Insurance Co. for Rs. 3,00,000/- against the peril of theft etc. from 8.8.2001 to 7.8.2002.  Truck was allegedly stolen in the intervening night of 23/24-9-2001.  Complainant alleged that Abdul Jabbar, driver after completing the day’s business alongwith cleaner went to Chadha Dhaba which was situated at a distance of 2 kilometers from Gadarpur for taking dinner at about 0.30 A.M. of 24.9.2001 after parking the truck near the said Dhaba.  Cleaner of the truck woke up at about 5.30 A.M.  After attending the nature’s call when he came back around 6.00 A.M. he found that the truck was not at the place where it was parked.  He informed the driver immediately.  After intensive search the truck could not be traced out.  Driver of the truck submitted a writing at P.S. Gadarpur for registering an FIR of theft of the truck.  Though the police received the writing, it did not record the FIR.  This led to the filing of a complaint before the concerned Magistrate.  Ultimately a case of theft was registered on 19.10.2001.  Police submitted the final report on 8.1.2002 which was accepted by the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 29.6.2002.  On claim made to the opposite party- Insurance Co. being not settled, complaint was filed which was contested by the Insurance Co.          Thrust of argument advanced by Shri M. C. Tyagi  for the opposite party – Insurance Co. was that the truck bearing registration No. WB-41-7123 whereof the complainant claims to be the registered owner, did not exist and the alleged theft did not took place in the intervening night of 23/24-9-2001.  Defence of non-existence of truck is based on paper Nos. 86 & 87 on the file of the District Forum whereof the Regional office of the Insurance Co. at Kolkata had informed the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Co.  at Haldwani that the truck bearing registration No. WB-41-7123 was registered in the name of one Abdus Samad, S/o of Solemani Sk.  and chassis number and engine number of that truck were  95 NC 3400096 and 39 130196M6200 respectively.  Model of the truck was mentioned as 1995.  On being approached by the complainant, the opposite party – Insurance Co. had insured the truck of 1992 model with registration No. WB-41-7123, Engine No. 692DO2692764 and Chassis No. 36HO73542792.  This truck was registered with Transport Department, Rudrapur (Paper No. 24).  On appreciation of evidence, the finding returned by the State Commission is that there were two trucks bearing the same registration No. with different Chassis and engine numbers and the truck whereof the ownership is claimed by the complainant did exist.   We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in this finding returned by the State Commission.

          As regards discrepancy in date of theft, the State Commission on scrutinizing the documentary evidence of both the parties referred to in para Nos. 4,6 & 7 of the order has held that the theft of the truck had taken place between the night of 23/24-9-2001.  There seems to be no illegality or jurisdictional error in this conclusion reached by the State Commission. 

          It was submitted by Shri Nikhil Jain for the complainant that the truck was purchased only a few months before its theft for Rs. 3,00,000/- by the complainant and the assessment regarding market value of the truck on the date of theft as made by the surveyor between Rs. 1.50 lakh to 1.60 lakh is erroneous.  He admitted that the complainant had not adduced any evidence of the purchase of truck for Rs. 3.00 lakhs.  In absence of such evidence, the State Commission  was  justified  in fixing  the market  value  of  the  truck at Rs. 1.55 lakhs taking note of the report of the surveyor.

          For the foregoing discussion, both the revisions deserve to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such.  No order as to costs.