PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 present. None for Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party because no claim is made against it. His name be deleted from the array of parties as prayed by the counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner/appellant –Smt. Gitanjali Bhattacharjee is an employee of State Bank of India. During the subsistence of Insurance Policy, her Santro car was stolen. One Sri Raju Das was employed by the petitioner to drive the car. On 09.10.2006, the car did not return home. Efforts were made to trace out the car and an FIR was lodged regarding the theft, on the same very day, with the police. During the course of the investigation, the employee Sri Raju Das was arrested alongwith three persons. However, the car could not be recovered. It is stated that driver Sri Raju Das is still in jail. The petitioner submitted the claim with the respondent, which was repudiated. The petitioner filed a complaint with the District Forum. The District Forum passed the following order:- “The complainant not only violated the Policy Condition, but also did not wait for the final repudiation of her claim. Since the O.P.s had asked the complainant to show the reasons as to why the claim should not be repudiated. The Forum finds no scope to entertain the claim of deficiency in service unless claim of the complainant is finally repudiated by the O.P. In view of the above we find the Complaint Petition premature and no order by either allowing or rejecting the prayer is justified. The Complainant Petition is dismissed accordingly without cost.” 3. The appeal was filed before the State Commission by Smt. Gitanjali Bhattacharjee. The appeal was dismissed by the State Commission and passed the following order:- “13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Despite dismissal of the appeal, liberty is granted to the appellant to approach the insurance company with an application containing genuine facts and highlighting her grievances the respondent insurance company, on receipt of such application, shall consider the claim of the appellant afresh keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case. The fact that the car in question was insured and the same was stolen by the culprits who were arrested by the police, shall be given due consideration by the insurance company while disposing of the application to be filed by the appellant. The application referred to above shall be disposed of by the respondent Insurance Company within two (2) months from the date of receipt of the same.” 4. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim and passed the following order:- “We have received the certified copy of the captioned Award and your letter dated 16.04.2013. It has been clearly stated in the award that you did not approach the District Forum with clean hand and clean heart and the facts were suppressed and misappropriated from your side while dealing in the matter. Also there had not been any attempt from your side to recover the stolen vehicle. In view of the foregoing violations, suppressions, misappropriation and failure to act as a “Prodeni Owner uninsured” in the score of availing of the available avenues under law to recover the vehicle we regret our inability to entertain the claim and hence the claim form asked for cannot be sent.” 5. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has raised few arguments. Counsel for the respondent, first of all, submits that FIR was recorded on 21.11.2006. However, we find that that is not true. Counsel for the complainant has invited our attention towards copy of the FIR which appears at page 48 & 49, Ex.11, which clearly goes to show that the FIR was recorded on 09.10.2006 i.e. the date of theft itself. 6. Secondly, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has argued that this is a case of criminal breach of trust and not that of theft. In this regard, she has drawn our attention towards para No. 10 of the order passed by the State Commission. We do not agree with this view. The concluding para clearly, specifically, unequivocally says that it is a case of theft, which has been quoted above. The driver stole the vehicle and therefore, this case will come under the four corners of theft for which he stands convicted. 7. Third submission made by the counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company is that the petitioner has deliberately misled the insurance company. She did not give the correct facts, such as that the vehicle was stolen by her employee or the car was stolen from the parking yard of the Bank and she did not disclose the name of the driver and that her driver was holding expired driving license. 8. All these arguments do not hold much water. In the complaint itself, the complainant has mentioned that the name of his driver was Sri Raju Das. However, in her complaint before the District Forum, she stated that one thief had stolen her car. All these are minor, insignificant contradictions, which do not go to the bottom of this case. It must be borne in mind that Smt. Gitanjali Bhattarjee is a lady and when the car is stolen, one does not know from where it was actually taken away. 9. Case of the complainant stands proved. We hereby set aside the orders passed by the Fora below. The car was purchased for a sum of Rs. 2,87,845/-. The I.D.B. is Rs. 2,72,027/- from December 2005 to December 2006. The car was stolen in October 2006. So we will also consider the question of depreciation and a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- be paid to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of theft, till the date of passing of this order. The amount be paid within 45 days from the receipt of this order, otherwise the interest will enhance to 10% from the expiry of above said 45 days. Compensation/litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- be also paid to the complainant, which be also paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till its realization. 10. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. | 
