JUDGMENT : N.K.Jain, J.: - Thisappeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act is by opposite party-theNational Insurance Company Ltd., which has been directed by the Forum below (DF Gwalior ) to pay to respondent-complainant Rs . 95,000/- as compensation, besides interest and cost forthe loss caused to the respondent on account of theft of his truck which wasinsured with the appellant on the date of the said theft. 2.The truck in question carrying registration No . MKW7757 was admittedly insured with appellant for a sum of Rs .2 lakhs for the period from 20-9-2000 to 19-9-2001 . At the relevant time the vehicle was beingplied by respondent insured through one Deepak Sharma holding power of attorneyfrom the respondent. According to the respondent-complainant the said truck on16-9-2001 was handed over to driver Hakeem Khan forbeing taken to a Transport Company namely ' Pawan Gati ' at Shivpuri and collectsome consignment for transportation to Indore .However, on inquiries it was reported that the truck did not reach either tothe said transporter at Shivpuri or at Indore . Suspecting some foul playon the part of driver, Deepak Sharma lodged a written report with theSuperintendent of Police, Gwalior and sent the same by registered post on 18-9-2001 .On confirmation of theft of the truck, intimation in writing was dispatched tothe appellant-Insurance Company on 5-10-2001 under certificate of posting. A formal claim was also lodged on 25-10-2001 . The police which has registered a crime under Section 406, TPC gave FRin the matter on 2-2-2002 .However, the appellant-Insurance Company vide its letter dated 20-8-2002repudiated the respondents' claim informing him that on investigation it couldnot be established that the incidence of theft has taken place during policyperiod. 3.The respondent first lodged complaint with the insurance Ombudsman who however, vide his order dated 16-2-2004 declined to adjudicate the same on the groundthat it was beyond its powers to inquire into the matter. The complainantthereafter approached the District Forum attributing deficiency to theappellant-Insurance Company and claiming sum assured Rs .2 lacs with interest and cost. The claim of therespondent was resisted by appellant-Insurance Company which reiterated itsground of repudiation that on detailed investigation, the fact of theft oftruck during insurance period was not established. The complainantthereafter approached the District Forum attributing deficiency to theappellant-Insurance Company and claiming sum assured Rs .2 lacs with interest and cost. The claim of therespondent was resisted by appellant-Insurance Company which reiterated itsground of repudiation that on detailed investigation, the fact of theft oftruck during insurance period was not established. 4.The Forum below after taking evidence of the parties came to the conclusionthat the truck in question was stolen on or around 16th September, 2004, Le., within the insurance period and passed orders forpayment of compensation and cost as aforesaid. The compensation Rs . 95,000/- was awarded on the basis of valuation of thetruck made by the surveyor appointed by the appellant-Insurance Company. 5.We have heard learned Counsel for parties and also gone through the evidentiarymaterial on record. This appeal in our considered view, must fail. 6.As already stated, the respondent's claim was repudiated by appellant-InsuranceCompany mainly on the ground that on investigation the theft of vehicle duringperiod of insurance, i.e., on or around 16th September, 2001 was not established. The Insurance Company for thatpurpose has heavily relied upon the report of its investigator Shri R.N. Goswami who vide hisreport dated 10-7-2001 has expressed doubt as to the genuineness of theincident. He in his report has enumerated various infirmities in the claim ofthe respondent insured which according to him created doubt as to the fact oftheft having taken place on or around 16-9-2001 .The appellant-Insurance Company in its letter dated 20-2-2001 has virtually reproduced all thosegrounds enumerated in the investigation report. Affidavit of Shri Goswami has also been filedin evidence in support of the said report. We have very carefully gone throughthis report as also the papers filed therewith. We are however, unable to agreewith the inferences drawn by the investigator. 7.The main emphasis in this investigation report was on the delay in reportingthe said incident to the police as also to the Insurance Company. It waspointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the FIR in the casewas registered as late as on 2-2-2002 and that intimation to the appellant-Insurance Company was also given muchbelatedly on 25-10-2001 .It is however, seen that said Deepak Sharma - the attorney of the complainantsuspending foul play on the part of the truck driver has sent a written reportthrough registered post to S.P., Gwalior on 18-9-2001and also informed the appellant-Insurance Company through a letter dated5-10-2001 sent under certificate of posting. Although the appellant-InsuranceCompany has denied that any such report or intimation was ever sent either tothe SP, Gwalior or the appellant. However, there is documentary evidence available on record toestablish that intimation as aforesaid was given by the respondent to the SP, Gwalior as also to the BranchManager of the appellant-Insurance Company. Not only the respondent has filedpostal receipts, but also produced a certificate given by the PostalAuthorities clearly certifying that the letter dated 18-9-2001 sent by Deepak Sharma by registeredpost was delivered to SP, Gwalior on 19-9-2001 . Similarly,the certificate of posting Annexure C-8 clearly goes to show that theintimation of theft was also given to and presumably received by, the appellanton 5-10-2001 . In fact, inthe subsequent letter dated 25-10-2001 by the respondent to the appellant the fact of his having already sentintimation under certificate of posting was clearly stated. An endorsement wasalso made by the officers of the appellant-Insurance Company which thus reads : - xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Obviouslythe appellant-insurer was not sure that no such letter was ever received. 7.There can be thus no manner of doubt that timely information of theft was givento the police as also to the appellant-Insurance Company. The very fact thatintimation to the police was given on 18-9-2001 clearly goes to show that theft had taken place prior to the said date, i.e.,before expiry of the period of insurance cover (it expired on 19-9-2001 ). Other discrepancies notedby the investigator are too trifle to be taken noteof. He at many places seems to have misread the documents obviously with a viewto support his conclusions. As already stated the police had also registered acase and after investigation submitted FR as the truck as also the culpritdriver remained untraced. 8.As a last leg it was contended by the learned Counsel for appellant that atbest it was case of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation not of theftand so the loss was not covered by the policy. It was pointed out that thepolice had also registered the crime under Section 406, IPC, not under Section379, IPC. The argument to say the least is totally misconceived and contrary tothe law. It was pointed out that thepolice had also registered the crime under Section 406, IPC, not under Section379, IPC. The argument to say the least is totally misconceived and contrary tothe law. A property in the hands of servant or agent shall always be deemed tobe in possession of the owner/master and the moment the servant/agent runs awayor otherwise dishonestly parts with that property, he would be guilty of theft.Illustration (d) of Section 378 of the IPC makes this legal position amplyclear. 9.It will be thus seen that the subject insured was stolen when the insurancecover was in force rendered the appellant-insurer liable to make good the losscaused to the respondent-insured. The Forum below has awarded compensation Rs . 95,000/- as assessed by the surveyor. The order of theForum thus, calls for no interference. 10.Dismissed with cost Rs . 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand).