1.      This first appeal has been filed by Smt. Rukmani Mangal, Original Complainant before the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) and Appellant herein being aggrieved by the order of that Commission, in which Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Respondents No. 1 to 3, were Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant had purchased a Tata Tipper vehicle by availing loan from finance company i.e. Respondent No.4 and had thereafter insured the same with Respondent/Insurance Company by depositing Rs.25,647/- towards the insurance to cover the period of validity from 22.09.2006 to 21.09.2007.  After completing the required formalities she received a permit from the RTO to ply the vehicle.  The said vehicle was stolen by some miscreants on 22.04.2007 from near a petrol pump in Gandarpur, Cuttack.  Appellant lodged an FIR on the same date with the police, which subsequently submitted a final report and the case was closed by the learned Court.  Respondent/Insurance Company was also intimated about the same.  The claim which was submitted by the Appellant was not settled by the Respondent/Insurance Company despite several requests to do so.  Being aggrieved, Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission against the Respondent/Insurance Company as well as the finance company for deficiency in service and requested that Respondent/Insurance Company be directed to pay                        (i) Rs.10,68,067/- towards settlement of the entire claim with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of occurrence of the theft till actual realization of the insurance amount; (ii) Rs.8,00,000/- for payment towards financer dues; (iii) Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment; (iv) Rs.40,000/- as litigation costs; and (v) Rs.50,000/- spent towards accessories used in the vehicle.

3.      Respondent/Insurance Company on being served filed a written rejoinder stating that the claim was duly investigated and since the vehicle was insured through Respondent No.4, Magma Leasing Limited (as mentioned in the order of the State Commission), the necessary file was forwarded to them to arrange for invoice copy of the vehicle, duplicate ignition key, letter of subrogation, no objection certificate etc. but till date these instructions have not been complied with and, therefore, the claim amount could not be settled.  It was further submitted that the Respondent/Insurance Company is willing to settle the claim for Rs.8,00,000/- subject to production of the above documents and also impleadment of Respondent No.4 as a party to the proceedings since vehicle in question was hypothecated with it and as per the hire purchase agreement contained in the insurance policy, the insurance amount is payable to the financier.

4.      The State Commission after hearing the parties passed the following order :-

“Perused the consumer complaint and the annexed documents.  In course of hearing it came to our notice that the insurance company, who had issued the policy, had not received all the documents from the complainant for settlement and disbursement of the claim amount.  Mr.Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that he would supply a fresh set of entire documents to Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 to do the needful.”

5.      Being         aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present first appeal has been filed.

6.      Learned Counsel for the Appellant has stated that all the necessary documents as directed by the State Commission had been submitted to the Regional Manager of the Respondent/Insurance Company to settle the claim and in this connection Appellant’s Counsel brought to our attention the letter dated 12.09.2008 written by the Appellant clearly indicating 12 documents, which also included the R.C. and vehicle’s keys, whose receipt was officially acknowledged by the Respondent/Insurance Company vide its office seal dated 18.09.2008.  Under these circumstances, the Appellant is not in a position to supply the original documents.  At the most she can supply the reconstructed documents but in any case the keys cannot be supplied since these were handed over and received by the Respondent/Insurance Company.  Regarding the payment of the outstanding EMI amounts, the Appellant states that since the financier is liable to receive the insured amount first, she is ready to pay the remaining outstanding dues after adjustment towards EMI and other charges.

7.      Counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company states that the Insurance Company is willing to settle the claim once the copies of the documents are supplied by the Appellant.

8.      Counsel for Respondent No.4 i.e. financier states that it will issue an NOC in favour of the Appellant after the outstanding amount towards EMI and other charges is received from the Insurance Company.

9.         In view of the above facts, the present appeal is disposed of on the above terms.