PER A.P. SAHI, J., PRESIDENT

1. The petitioner/complainant was the owner of a Tata Sumo vehicle which he got insured with the respondent/Insurance Company in May 2001 at Goa.  The petitioner/complainant being a businessman had to travel outside Goa and he also had a residence at Bandra, Mumbai where he went in August, 2001 and in the intervening night of 18.08.2001 and 19.08.2001 the said vehicle was stolen, where-after an FIR was lodged at Bandra Police Station.
2. A claim was made before the Insurance Company for indemnifying against the theft of the vehicle and the Insurance Company proceeded to negotiate the same for which the petitioner/complainant also tendered a Subrogation Deed in favour of the Insurance Company.
3. By this time, the vehicle was traced out and was recovered in Jodhpur, Rajasthan.  The petitioner/complainant alleges that he spent a lot of money in visiting Jodhpur accompanied by the Goa Police officials but he could not get the custody of the vehicle.  He came to know that the same vehicle was claimed by one Abu Bakar who had alleged that he had purchased it and he had again sold it to one T.P. Singh.
4. The petitioner/complainant had taken a loan for purchase of the said vehicle and therefore he prayed before the DCDRC North Goa, Porvorim, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) by filing CC/65/2003 that was ultimately allowed by the District Commission on 25.09.2008 directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- together with interest @ 9% and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- plus Rs.10,000/- as damages.
5. The Insurance Company contested the complaint by asserting that the claim had been repudiated vide letter dated 01.11.2022 which is extracted hereinafter in Para-20.
6. It was urged by the petitioner/complainant that once the Insurance Company had obtained the Subrogation Deed from the petitioner/complainant, they could not have repudiated the claim and ought to have settled the matter. 
7. The Insurance Company filed an Appeal, being Appeal No. 65/2008, before the SCDRC Panaji, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission).  The State Commission after taking notice of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, concluded that the vehicle had been sold to one Abu Bakar and the possession had been handed over to him, then in that event the said vehicle could not be returned back.  Nonetheless, the State had filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Court, Jodhpur, being Case No. 27 of 2002, but in the absence of any further developments, the District Commission was not justified in proceeding to award compensation in respect of a vehicle which was alleged to have been stolen but had been recovered and was subject matter of a controversy and decision before the Criminal Court at Jodhpur. 
8. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 11.02.2010 and the order of the District Commission was set aside.
9. Aggrieved by the order passed in appeal, the petitioner/complainant has filed this revision petition urging that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as the petitioner/complainant was entitled to the possession of the vehicle which had been stolen and was incorrectly released in favour of Abu Bakar by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company Mr. Maibam N. Singh has opposed the revision petition contending that according to the terms of the policy there was nothing on record to substantiate any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, inasmuch as the vehicle had been recovered and hence there was no loss which was required to be indemnified.  He submits that the letter of subrogation dated 21.12.2001 was only a step in negotiation but had not been finalized by the time the vehicle had been recovered and in such circumstances the claim has been rightly repudiated. In essence, the claim of insurance is based on the theft of the vehicle which risk was covered under the policy.  Nonetheless, the stolen vehicle had already been recovered and was a Court property which came to be released as per the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur.  This fact remains undisputed.  Consequently, the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the petitioner/complainant in the background that the vehicle had been recovered does not arise.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anita Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 139 to urge that the Insurance Company was not absolved of its liability as there was no breach on the part of the petitioner/complainant so as to deny him any indemnification.
12. The judgment of the Delhi High Court is in respect of a third party claim arising out of a Motor Vehicles Act whereas the present case is of the owner’s claim from the Insurance Company for indemnification.   
13. The ownership itself being an issue in the light of a judicial intervention by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a matter relating to the theft of the same vehicle therefore is a fact which is peculiar to this case establishing the recovery of the vehicle with a dispute regarding its ownership.
14. The petitioner purchased the vehicle which was of a green colour and had a registration No. GA-01/S-716. The vehicle was financed by M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Company Limited, Panaji, Goa. The vehicle was also insured on 25.05.2001 and the duration of the policy was from 25.05.2001 to 24.05.2002. It was a relatively new vehicle and was stolen in the night of 18^th/ 19^th August, 2001. The vehicle was stolen when the petitioner had visited Mumbai and was staying at his residence in Bandra, the vehicle had been parked when it was stolen and the FIR was promptly lodged on 19.08.2001 at Police Station Bandra, Mumbai. During investigation the name of the suspects surfaced, one Mr. Rashid Mohd. Shabir Shaikh of Bandra, the other Abu Bakar S/o Haji Amin Dilwali from Dharavi and the third suspect was one Mr. Shivraj Waman Kamath from Thane. The investigation was pending when the Insurance Company dispatched a letter on 23.10.2001 to the financer M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Company Limited to give a no objection as the Insurance policy had been assigned in favour of the Financer. Further it seems that the petitioner had already lodged his claim with the Insurance Company as such the Insurance Company had demanded a subrogation deed which was duly signed and tendered by the petitioner on 21.12.2001. Thus, the process of indemnification of the loss of the vehicle seems to have commenced and was being negotiated by the Insurance Company. However before any such negotiations could conclude, the Insurance Company seems to have received an information regarding the recovery of the stolen vehicle from the state of Rajasthan with vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-21/P-1208.
15. The Insurance Company dispatched a letter to the petitioner dated 08.02.2002 informing him about the recovery of the vehicle and accordingly withheld any such indemnification. The complainant wrote back to the Insurance Company on 27.02.2002 informing them about a doubt regarding the recovered vehicle which was blue in colour and since the police in Mumbai had not further proceeded with the investigation, the Insurance Company should indemnify the complainant. The complainant also gave an undertaking that in case the vehicle is found and recovered after identification to be the same vehicle, the petitioner would refund the amount of indemnification. Another reminder to that effect was sent by the Petitioner on 04.04.2002 and then a third letter dated 07.05.2002, which are all on record.
16. The Insurance Company in response to the aforesaid letter wrote back to the complainant informing that the vehicle which has been recovered is in the custody of one Mr. Abu Bakar S/o Mohd. Haji Amin, Village Basani, District Nagaur, Rajasthan, which bears the same engine and chassis number as per the registration certificate book particulars. Accordingly the Insurance Company informed the complainant that on account of the recovery of the vehicle, the claim would no longer be maintainable and made a request to the complainant to take steps for recovery of the vehicle as indicated in the said information. The said letter dated 13.05.2002 is extracted herein under:

Ref: 120500:Claim:96:02                                   Dated: 13.05.2002

To Shri Robin K. Rodrigues,

5, Orinha Cottage,

Umta Waddo, Baga Rd.,

Calangute- Goa 403516.

Dear Sir,

RE: Alleged theft of your vehicle GA-01/J-716 on 19.8.2001

We take reference to our correspondence resting with  your leter dated 7.05.02.

We understand that during your visit to our Regional Office last month, you have been advised to recover the vehicle lying with Shri Abbu Baker, S/o Shri MOhd. Hazi Amin, Village Basani, District Nagaur (Raj). Please note that the above vehicle bears the same Engine No. and Ch. No.  as per R.C. book particulars.

You will agree that as your vehicle has now been traced, your claim for theft of the above vehicle is no longer maintainable and could not be entertained by us. It would be in your interest to proceed immediately through legal means to recover possession of the above vehicle and ensure that it is surveyed and all damages noted immediately after the vehicle is recovered by you. Please also note that any further damages or loss of parts after the survey would not be our liability under the policy. 

We would once again request you to take urgent steps to recover your vehicle and proceed along with lines indicated above. Please note that further correspondence in the matter will not serve any purpose unless  and until the vehicle is recovered by you and presented for survey to our nearest office.

Thanking your

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Ashok U. Manikoth)

Sr. Divisional Manager.”

17. The Insurance Company had also seemingly appointed an investigator to know about the status of the vehicle through their own sources and the investigator Mr. Bhagwan Singh Bhati tendered his report on 13.07.2002 along with a photograph of the vehicle lying at the police station Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan having been recovered under FIR No. 44/2002, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan with the registration NO. RJ-21/P-1208. The said letter also indicates that Abbu Bakar S/o Haji Mohd. Amin referred to above was claiming ownership and the vehicle was released by the competent court in his favour, in whose custody the vehicle was available. The report of the investigator is extracted herein under:

“Ref. No.: BS/UIIC/2K2-2K3/593                                Date: 13.07.2002

To

Senior Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Office-I, Jodhpur.

Sub. About claim of TATA SUMO GA-01/J-0716.

Sir.

I had appointed for investigation of above said Tata Sumo. The undersigned contacted to P.S. Sardarpura, District Jodhpur, to Sub-inspector Shri Kailash Dan and my findings as under :-

(a) F.I.R. No. 44/2002, P.S. Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)

(b) The subject TATA SUMO have registration number RJ-21/P-1208. as per police record. The TATA SUMO seized by police authority, have Chassis No. EYZ-910239, Engine No. : DL-47E.2710917, as per police record.

(c) Mr. Abu Bakar S/O Shri Hazi Mohd. Amin, Village Basani, District Nagaur (Raj.) claimed ownership of the subject SUMO. The court released the sumo and handed over to Mr. Abu Bakar Presently the subject SUMO in custody of Mr. Abu Bakar.

(d) The undersigned try to inspect the subject SUMO but same was not available.

(e) I had collected all information and photographs from police station - Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

This report is issued without prejudice.

Thanking you and assuring best services at all the time.

Sd/-

(B.S. Bhati)

SLA-58921

Jodhpur

Encls:

1. Photograph 01 No.

2. Professional Fee Bill (In duplicate)”

18. The complainant also approached the transport department of Goa and obtained a certificate dated 17.07.2002, confirming that the vehicle stood registered in the name of the petitioner and that no certificate has been issued from the transport department for any transfer of ownership. The said letter is extracted herein under:

“No.ADT/BIC/17/2002/179

Government of Goa,

Office of The Asstt. Director

of Transport, (North),

Bicholim-Goa.

Date:- 17/07/2002.

CERTIFICATE

This is to Certify that motor vehicle No. GA-01 J-0716 bearing chassis No.41800SEYZ910239 and engine number 483DL 47EYZ2710917 stands registered in the name of Shri. Robin K. Rodrigues, s/o Antonio Mario Rodrigues, H.No. 67, Sonar- -poth, Bicholim-Goa with offect from 28-5-2001.

It is further Certified that Ne objection Certificate to transfer its ownership has not been issued from this office.

This Certificate is issued at the request of R. K. Rodrigues Bicholim, in order to produce before Police Authorities.

Sd/-

(K. L. Naik)

Asstt. Director of Transport, (N),

Bicholim-Goa.

To, Shri. R. K. Rodrigues,

Bicholim-Gea.”

19. It seems that the Bandra Police had further taken action and during the course of investigation one of the accused, Mr. Shivraj Waman Kamath was arrested on 07.08.2002 and on 08.08.2002, the charge sheet  was submitted against him in the theft case along with the name of the two suspects namely, Rashid Mohd. Shabir Shaikh of Bandara and Abu Bakar. S/o Hazi Ali Biilawali of Dharavi. This person, namely Abu Bakar, seems to be the same person who has been shown as resident of Nagour, Rajasthan in whose favour the vehicle was given interim custody.  The charge sheet is also on record.
20. The Insurance Company formally on 01.11.2002 repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the vehicle  had not been stolen but it had been sold and therefore the FIR of theft lodged with Bandra Police was a fudged one. The repudiation letter is extracted herein under:

“Dept: Claims                                                                 Date: 1/11/2002

Ref:120503/CLM/106/ 2002

“WITHOUT PREJUDICE”

Mr. Robin Rodrigues

H.N. 67, Sonarpeth

Bicholim Goa

Dear Sir.

RE: CL No. 120503/31/01/00070

Veh.No. GA 01/J 0716

This has reference to your above claim.

It is learnt from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpuri's Final Report that the captioned vehicle was not stolen but it was sold to one person and the FIR lodged with the Bandra police is fodged one.

Guided by the findings of the Jodhpuri police and the Magistrate's Report we are not in a position to honour your claim and as such your claim is hereby repudiated, which please may be noted.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

BRANCH MANAGER”

21. The Insurance Company through the repudiation letter also intimated about the findings of the magistrate report about which there were no details  in the said letter.
22. The complainant pursued his claim but of no avail as such a legal notice was dispatched on his behalf on 04.02.2003, in response to the said legal notice the Insurance Company sent a reply on 10.03.2003 along with the copy of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jodhpur on 15.03.2002, a copy of the reply given by the Insurance Company on 10.03.2003 is extracted herein under:

“Ref: 120500:CLAIM:1011:02             Dated:10.3.2003.

To,

Mr. Esperdiao Dias do Rosario,

T-14, Vrindavan Chambers,

 PATTO, PANAJI-GOA

"WITHOUT PREJUDICE"

Sir,

Re: Cl. No. 120503/31/7/0070/01

Pol. No. 120503/31/01/11/923/01

Insured: Shri. Robin K. Rodrigues,

Vehicle No. GA-01-J-0716

Theft of Tata Sumo Model 2001.

We are in receipt of your letter dated 4.2.2003 on the captioned matter. In this connection please note that your client has already been informed that the vehicle is available in Rajasthan and he has been advised to recover it and inform us accordingly as to whether there are any further damages. We are also enclosing a copy of the court order issued by C.J.M. Jodhpur Rajasthan which is in Hindi and clearly states that because the insured had not taken any steps to recover the vehicle from Sardarpura Police Station, Jodhpur, even though it was identified by Engine No. and Chassis number as the same vehicle, Court had therefore came to the conclusion that the vehicle had been sold by the insured to Shri. Abu Bakar and accordingly possession of the vehicle was handed over to Shri. Abu Bakar. You may also advise your client accordingly.

Yours faith fully.

Sd/-

(ASHOK U. MAΝΙΚΟΤΗ)

SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER.”

23. A perusal of the letter would therefore indicate that the Insurance Company relied on the court order dated 15.03.2002 again contending that the vehicle has been recovered but since the insured had not taken any steps, he may take appropriate advise in this regard. According to the court order the vehicle was alleged to have been sold to Mr. Abu Bakar and no proceedings were undertaken by the complainant or by Bandra Police for recovery of the vehicle. The prosecution had indicated that the papers were prepared and were fake with regard to the said vehicle, yet as in interim measure the learned CJM gave interim custody of the vehicle subject to the terms and conditions to Mr. Abu Bakar, a suspect in the criminal case. 
24. The complainant filed CC/65/2003 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Goa at Porvorim, Goa. Before the District Commission an application  was also moved by the complainant for additional documents which was objected to by the Insurance Company on 20.12.2003. This additional document was also along with a letter received by the complainant on a query about the status of the theft of the vehicle. This letter dated 03.07.2003 from the Sr. Inspector of Police, Bandra Police Station, Mumbai discloses in brief the arrest and the recovery as well as the involvement of the accused and the pendency of the case. The same is extracted herein under:

“To

Shri. Robbin K. Rodrigues

R/o: Rose Minar Building,

37 Chapel Road,

Bandra (W), Mumbai

Sir,

Subject: Theft of Tata Sumo Jeep No. GA-01-J-0716

Ref: Your letter dated 8-11-2002.

Bandra police station has registered a case vide C.R. No. 277/01 u/sec. 379 I.P.C. on complaint of your statement dated 19.08.01 regarding a theft of Tata Sumo Jeep no SA-01-J-0716.

During the course of investigation it is revealed that the sumo which is the subject matter of the present case, was involved in another offence which was duly registered with Sardarpura Police Station at Jodhpur, Rajasthan in C. R. No. 44/02, u/sec 420 I.P.C.

The vehicle stolen in C.R. No. 277/01 duly registered at Bandra Police Station was sold by Abu Bakar Haji Amin Dilwali, R/o: Basani, Dist. Nagour, Rajasthan, to the complainant of the case registered at Sardarpura police station viz. Mr. Tejpratap Singh under registration no RJ-21-P-1208, when the document were checked it revealed that the chasis and the engine nos. of the vehicle which were same as of vehicle involved in a case duly registered at Bandra, thus it is confirmed that the documents were prepared forged and fabricated at R.T.O. Nagour, Rajasthan with the help of agents working in R.T.O. office.

During the course of investigation it is also revealed that vehicle registered under registration No. RJ-21-P-1208 has been fraudulently registered at R.T.O. Nagour, which was earlier registered under registration no. GA-01-J-6923 at R.T.O. Margaon, Goa is a Maruti 800 Car. This fact clearly establishes that forged and fabricated documents were prepared and used as genuine before the authorities for obtaining fraudulent registration number, as no N.O.C. for transfer has been issued by R.T.O. Bicholim, Goa

Presently vehicle is in possession of Abu Bakar Haji Amin, therefore, he is also one of the wanted accused in this case as he is possessing stolen property of the said case. The wireless message to that effect is flashed on 25.07.2002 through Superintendent of Police, Nagour, Rajasthan vide message No. 0725039 and NR No. 374.

Thereafter on 07/08/2002 accused Shivraj Waman Kamath 33 years, was arrested in this case. He confessed that he had theft the said vehicle no GA-01-J-0716 from Bandra and sold it to Abu Bakar s/o Haji Dilwali R/o Basani, Dist: Nagour, Rajasthan subsequently the said vehicle was seized by Sardarpura police station in their CR No. 44/02, u/sec 420 I.P.C. thereafter Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur pleased to return the said sumo to Abu Bakar Haji Amin Dilwali on his request. Then Sardarpura police station and Bandra police has appealed in the court of session, Jodhpur against the order passed by Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur requested that the said vehicle is wanted in Bandra Police Station C.R. No. 277/01, u/sec 379 1.P.C. The said case is pending at session court Jodhpur vide case 27/02 and next date is 07/07/02.

Your faithfully

Sd/-

Sr. Inspector of Police

Bandra Police Station

Mumbai.”

25. The District Commission after having assessed the entire evidence arrived at the conclusion that since there was no certificate of no objection issued by the competent authority for the transfer of the vehicle the story of sale of the vehicle to Abu Bakar was not acceptable. The Police report of Jodhpur and the order of the CJM, Jodhpur had not been produced before the District Commission. The District Commission further found that the petitioner had issued a letter of subrogation with an undertaking, and that there was no dispute with regard to the existence of the policy. The District Commission therefore concluded that the story of selling of the vehicle to Mr. Abu Bakar was not proved as alleged by the Insurance Company and to the contrary the complainant had proved that he has not sold the vehicle to any person. It was therefore found that the vehicle had been stolen and the ground of repudiation was unsustainable. The claim was accordingly allowed with its findings and observations recorded on 25.09.2008, which is extracted herein under:

““Findings and observations

(1) The main issue for repudiation of claim is that the vehicle TATA SUMO bearing No.GA-01/J-0716 registered in R.T.O. Bicholim-Goa, was sold by complainant to one of Mr. Abu Bakar and this vehicle Was traced in Jodhpur by Police.

(2) Weind on record that R.T.O., Bicholim has issued certificate to the complainant which read as under:-

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Motor vehicle No. GA-01/J-0716 bearing chassis No.41800SETZ910239 and Engine No. 48 3DL 47EYZ2710917 stands registered in the name of Shri. Robin K. Rodrigues, S/o Antonio Mario Rodrigues, H.No.67, Sonarpeth, Bicholim-Goa with effect from 28-05-2001. It is further certified that No Objection Certificate to transfer its ownership has not been issued from this office. This certificate is issued at the request of R. K. Rodrigues, Bicholim, in order to produce before police Authorities.

(3) As per letter issued by Opposite Party on 01/11/2002 the Opposite Party is relied upon finding off Jodhpur police and report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, of Jodhpur while repudiating a claim, However, this reports are not produced on record.

(4) It is admitted fact that the letter of subrogation was ready along with cheque of claim amount and the possession of key of TATA SUMO was handed over.

(5) There is no dispute with regard to premium, expiry, estimate of claim, etc.,

(6) The issue of selling of vehicle to Mr. Abu Bakar, is not proved by

Opposite Party, but complainant has proved that he had not sold the vehicle to any persons.

(7) Therefore, we assume that the vehicle TATA SUMO was stolen and Complainant is entitled for claim. The Opposite Party cannot repudiate on flimsy grounds.

We are inclined to pass following:-

ORDER

(a) The Complaint is partially allowed.

(b) Opposite Party to pay sum of Rs.3,95,000/- along with interest @9%p.a. to Complainant from the date of claim.

(c) The Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- compensation towards cost.

(d) The Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- damages.

(e) Order to be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order.”

26. The complaint was accordingly allowed with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- together with interest @9% plus an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- together with Rs.10,000/- as damages as well.
27. The Insurance Company filed an appeal being FA/65/2008 and the appeal was allowed recording that the vehicle had been sold and was again resold to one Mr. T.P. Singh, as such the vehicle had been handed over under the order of the CJM in the Sessions court at Jodhpur.  Since this fact of the vehicle having been addressed remained undisputed  and the chassis and the engine number were the same, there was no occasion to settle the claim as the vehicle had been traced before the stage of settlement. The State Commission also held that it was for the complainant to have pursued the matter with the police and judicial authorities at Jodhpur for recovery of the vehicle and hence repudiation was upheld and the order passed by the District Commission on 25.09.2008 was set aside dismissing the complaint. Paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of the order in appeal dated 11.02.2010 is extracted herein under:

7. The crux of the dispute lies in the appellant's contention that the stolen vehicle had been traced in Jodhpur with one Abu Bakar and hence the respondent's claim was no longer maintainable. Reliance was placed on an order issued by C. J. M. Jodhpur concluding that the vehicle had been sold by the complainant to Abu Baker and accordingly possession of the vehicle was handed to Abu Bakar. Copy of the order is placed in the file. The appellant has also relied on a letter dated 03-07-2003 written by Sr. Inspector Bandra Police Station to the respondent/complainant to the effect that the vehicle is in possession of Abu Bakar by virtue of the said order of C. J. M Jodhpur, and that the Sardarpura (Jodhpur) Police and the Bandra Police have appealed against the C. J. M's order in the Sessions Court Jodhpur in Case no. 27/2002, The fact of the allegedly stolen vehicle being traced in Jodhpur is indisputable. The chassis and engine numbers of the stolen property recovered by Jodhpur Police being identical to the vehicle in the respondents FIR is admitted by Bandra Police. In such circumstances, the respondents claim to the insurance company to underwrite the loss of the stolen vehicle would become infructuous and Fredundant. We are inclined to agree with the appellant that the respondents claim was no longer maintainable with the stolen vehicle having been located.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed heavy reliance on the letter of subrogation issued by him to the appellant. It is his case that once such letter was issued, it was upto the Insurance Company to recover the vehicle. Admittedly, the letter of subrogation was taken by the appellant as part of the claim settlement process; needless to say, it would take effect only after the final settlement of the claim on payment of the claim amount. The stolen vehicle was traced before that stage was reached. The document does not come to the complainant's aid. As for the recovery of the stolen vehicle and its restoration to the  rightful owner, it is for the respondent to pursue the matter with the police and the judicial authorities in Jodhpur before whom it is said to be pending. At any rate, the appellant Insurance Company does not have any role to play in the matter.

9. The foregoing aspects of the matter were not considered by the Trial Forum. In our considered view, in the facts and under the circumstances, repudiation of the respondent's claim does not constitute deficiency in services rendered by the appellant. As such, the complaint was not maintainable on its merits.

10. In the result, we pass the following order:

(a) Appeal no. 65/2008 is allowed.

(b) The impugned order dated 25-09-2008 is hereby set aside.

(c) Consumer Dispute No. 65/2003 on the file of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Forum) North Goa stands dismissed.

(d) In the circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.”

28. The petitioner aggrieved by the reversal of the order of the District Commission in appeal has preferred this revision petition which was admitted on 20.09.2010 and the petitioner was called upon to file complete documents, for which a cost was also imposed on him on 05.08.2015,that was prayed for being waived. All the documents therefore have been filed through the compilation on 31.08.2015 in addition to the document which had already been filed along with the revision petition and then again on 25.01.2021 through IA/2481/2021.
29. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the obligation  of the Insurance Company cannot stand discharged on the basis of the alleged recovery of the vehicle and relying on the judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anita Devi (supra), he submits that there is no breach at all on the part of the complainant as alleged in the repudiation letter about fudging of the controversy. He contends that the fact that the vehicle that has been recovered, bears the same engine and chassis number, may indicate a recovery but it is still subjudice and is a court property unless it is finally released and held that the vehicle was not a stolen property. The concoction by the accused of the vehicle having been sold by the petitioner is absolutely false and the District Commission had held on the basis of evidence that the vehicle was never sold by the petitioner. It  is therefore submitted that the findings recorded by the State Commission are erroneous and are perverse and against the weight of evidence on record and hence the same requires reversal. It is submitted that the order of the District Commission deserves to be restored.
30. Replying to the aforesaid submissions Mr. Maibam Singh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that once the vehicle has been recovered there is no question of any indemnification and the petitioner does not seem to have taken any steps for getting the vehicle released in his favour in spite of the repeated communications sent to him before and after the repudiation. He has referred to the reply given by the insurance Company on 13.05.2002, the report of the investigator dated 13.07.2002 and the reply given on 10.03.2003, which are all extracted herein above.
31. We have considered the submissions raised and the facts of this case disclose a pathetic story of the theft of almost a new vehicle within three months of its purchase in the year 2001. The vehicle was a Tata Sumo SUV and if existing would be about 23 years old and on the verge of being scrapped. Nonetheless, the value of the vehicle that was adjudged by the District Commission to be Rs.3,95,000/- on the date of the theft is an issue which remains alive and cannot be brushed aside amidst the legal gymnastics that have been noted hereinabove. The petitioner has failed to get his grievance  redressed undergoing the judicial mechanism of the criminal court as well as the consumer commissions and the Insurance Company has washed its hand off in the manner indicated above.
32. The ground of repudiation is that the complainant seems to have sold of his vehicle and initiated the story of theft as if it was a fictional creation by him. We are unable to accept this plea of repudiation in the absence of any final proof to establish that the vehicle had been sold and not stolen.  After all why would anyone fudge a police report and then spend thousands of rupees in chasing the case for recovery upto Jodhpur where the petitioner had travelled incurring heavy expenses to secure the stolen vehicle for which exhaustive documents have been brought on record.  The travel bills have been filed to support the same.  Secondly, it does not stand to reason as to why would the owner sell a vehicle just after 3 months of its purchase.  No evidence emerges on this to presume a sale of the vehicle except for the unilateral version of one of the suspects in the criminal trial Abu Bakar who has been given merely an interim custody by the order of the court dated 15.03.2002.   
33. The reasons for this conclusion are that the FIR was promptly lodged on 19.08.2001. The Police have investigated it and have charge sheeted one Mr. Shivram Waman Kamath as against the case of theft registered at police station Bandra, Mumbai. Even if it is presumed that the vehicle recovered from Rajasthan is the same as alleged, the connect of the theft is clearly narrated in the letter of the Sr. Inspector of Police, Bandra Police Station dated 03.07.2002, extracted hereinabove. This letter was on record before the District Commission and has also been noticed in the impugned order of the State Commission but the State Commission had relied on the order of the CJM, Jodhpur dated 15.03.2002 to believe as if the vehicle has been released to it rightful owner, Mr. Abu Bakar who is one of the suspects in the case. This assumption is erroneous in as much as, it is also evident that the prosecution at Jodhpur had also filed some appeal against the order of the CJM dated 15.03.2002, which fact has neither been further investigated nor any details have been procured to ascertain about the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid presumption of the sale of the vehicle. The order of the CJM dated 15.03.2002 is only a simple release of the vehicle in temporary custody of Mr. Abu Bakar on an undertaking as recorded therein. The order of the CJM Jodhpur does not finally hold the sale to have been proved and is subject to evidence in the case. To the contrary the complainant has brought on record the certificate dated 17.07.2002 from the transport department confirming that no no-objection certificate for transfer of the vehicle has been issued from the transport department. Consequently to accept the story of sale at this stage without confirming any other facts was an incorrect approach by the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim finally and  also seems to have been erroneously not appreciated by the State Commission. These factual aspects were relevant and non-consideration thereof therefore renders the impugned order of the State Commission dated 11.02.2010 infirm and unsustainable.
34. The State Commission ought to have taken notice of the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 13 where it is empowered to take all such possible steps for securing material to arrive at a just conclusion. The State Commission simply accepted the stand of the Insurance Company as if the order of the CJM, Jodhpur dated 15.03.2002 had finally decided the ownership issue. The stand of the Insurance Company that the case of theft was fudged up, in spite of all this investigation arrest and recovery, does not seem to be a correct approach and seems to have been adopted only with a view to somehow or the other repudiate the claim without further waiting for the outcome of the criminal case.
35. So far as the petitioner is concerned he has lost his vehicle and without any final proof of sale it could not be said that the claim is not covered under the risk narrated in the policy. The Insurance Company ought to have taken further steps in the matter after the investigator had submitted the report by confirming the status of the sale as alleged by the accused before the concerned court. This further investigation was wanting and the State Commission has also lacked in its approach by not obtaining the relevant material before relying on the stand of the Insurance Company in a unilateral way.
36. For all the reasons aforesaid unless the status of  the theft as against the story of sale is not appreciated on the basis of relevant material, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected outright.
37. Consequently, the matter remains to be examined for which it would be appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for a decision afresh after allowing the parties to bring on record the status of further proceedings of the criminal case as also any orders or steps having been taken in relation to the transaction of the vehicle and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The vehicle at this stage unless identified to have been sold, it prima facie seems to have been the subject matter of a theft and the recovery, if any, has not resulted in the reinstatement of the vehicle to the petitioner. The issue of indemnification therefore remains open till this is finally determined.

38.       The revision petition is therefore allowed and the order dated 11.02.2010 passed by the State Commission is  set aside and the matter is remanded back.  The appeal shall stand restored to its original number for decision afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 23.10.2024, whereupon the State Commission shall proceed accordingly.