Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite party is directed against the order dated 25.2.2002 passed by District Consumer Forum, Hisar whereby complaint bearing No.536 of 1998 of Satbir Singh, respondent/complainant was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and OP was directed to pay the assessed amount of Maruti Van with 15% p.a. interest from the date of lodging the claim till realization. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant was a registered owner of Maruti Van bearing No.DNE-5179 which stood insured vide cover note No.69962 valid from 28.3.97 to 27.3.98. The said vehicle stood stolen on the night of 24.5.1997 when it was parked near Pusa Road, Delhi. The matter was reported to the police and FIR No.338 dated 26.5.97 was registered with P.S.Karol Bagh under Section 379IPC. Thereafter, complainant lodged claim with the insurance company seeking indemnification of the loss and submitted all the requisite papers as per the requirement of OP. It was alleged that the officials of OP had obtained 3-4 blank signed papers on the pretext that his claim would be prepared and submitted to the head office for sanction but subsequently repudiated the claim in the month of September,1997 without assigning any reason. According to the complainant, repudiation of the claim was illegal and arbitrary. He then served upon OP legal notice through his counsel calling upon it to pay his lawful claim with interest @ 18% but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum to indemnify the loss suffered by him on account of theft of Maruti Van alongwith interest and compensation etc. 4. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 15.4.1998 as the complainant was changing his statement about the theft of the vehicle. The complainant got registered FIR on 26.5.1997 at 5.00 P.M. that his Maruti Van was stolen on the night of May 24-25, 1997 from Pusa Road area of Karol Bagh, but he changed his version as per his statement dated 3.6.97 made to Shri Yogesh Kapoor, Investigator and again changed his version on 5.6.97 when he made another statement to Sh. M.L.Sachdeva, investigator, therefore, it could not be said that the vehicle in question was stolen. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order , opposite party had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer commission which has been transferred to this Commission under directions of the Hon’ble National Commission. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised by the counsel for appellant is that the District Forum had not considered the report of surveyor & loss assessor and investigator before whom the complainant had changed his version. Further the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum @ 15% p.a. is on the higher side. 7. A perusal of the impugned reveals that the learned District Forum has considered the report of investigator and did not find any force in it. There is no evidence produced on behalf of OP that the vehicle in question was not stolen and that the FIR and untraced report were not genuine. The vehicle was stolen during the currency of the insurance policy and theft was covered under the policy. The learned District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that the OP without taking pain of detailed investigation only adopted the easy way to repudiate the claim of the complainant who was writing from the very beginning that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the officials of OP and he was very cooperative in submitting all the necessary documents required by OP for settling the claim. 8. As regard awarding of interest @ 15% by the District Forum on the assessed amount of the vehicle from the date of lodging the claim till realization, we feel the same appears to be on higher side as during the period it was made payable, the rate of interest prevailing in the market and financial institutions was not more than 9%. So, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest is reduced from 15% p.a to 9% p.a.. 9. But for the above modification in the rate of interest, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
