ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President) This is insurer’s appeal against the order dated 28.07.2003 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, allowing consumer complaint No. 136/2002 with costs of Rs. 500/- and further entitling the complainant to insured sum of Rs. 40,000/-, to be paid within one month of the impugned order. 2. The claim for insured sum arose on account of theft on 23.05.1998 of complainant’s insured motorcycle No. UP02C/2218 and which had not been finalized and paid by the insurance company, which had defended its stand on the plea that merely filing of the FIR of the theft incident, was not sufficient to prove the case of the complainant and that the complainant failed to furnish the required information, so as to enable the insurance company to take a decision in the matter. 3. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, accepted the complainant’s case regarding theft of insured vehicle and finding that the insurance company failed to finalize the claim, opined that the insurance company made deficiency in service and, thus, proceeded to allow the consumer complaint in the manner as aforesaid by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company urged that the District Forum failed to take into account that the matter was investigated by the police, which did not find truth in the allegation of the complainant and further that the District Forum failed to take into account the fact that the complainant had not co-operated in the matter by giving the required information and filing the required documents detailed in letter dated 04.01.1999 (Paper No. 46) and good number of letters later on sent to the complainant. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and the complaint was liable to be dismissed. Alternatively, learned counsel claimed that the compensation not more than what had been assessed by the surveyor, could have been awarded in the case. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant supported the order of the District Forum, by submitting that the insurance company failed to settle the claim despite the fact that the FIR filed by the complainant about the incident of theft was sent by him to the insurance company and the matter was also considered by company’s investigator. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant supported the order of the District Forum, by submitting that the insurance company failed to settle the claim despite the fact that the FIR filed by the complainant about the incident of theft was sent by him to the insurance company and the matter was also considered by company’s investigator. According to the learned counsel, the complaint was rightly allowed for insured sum of Rs. 40,000/-, as the insurance company was bound by the value for which the policy of insurance was issued by it. 5. Having considered the respective submissions in the light of the facts of the case, we may state at the outset that there being no force in this appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed. The reasons are that the allegation of theft of the insured motorcycle of the complainant, has been sufficiently proved by the averment of the affidavit of the complaint, coupled with the FIR (Paper No. 52) lodged by him at the concerned police station on the next day of the incident. Sh. Chandrapal Singh Tomer, the investigator of the insurance company vide his report dated 25.09.2003 (Paper Nos. 72 to 73), informed the insurance company that the police had submitted F.R. in the case after investigation and the allegation of theft of the motorcycle has not been found to be correct. No documents, which were considered by the investigator as well as the statement of the complainant and his witnesses recorded in that regard, have been placed on record and, therefore, the District Forum was justified in not placing implicit reliance on the investigator’s report that the incident of theft of the motorcycle has not been found to be correct. No independent investigation by the company’s investigator has been made and in the totality of the circumstances of the case, the evidence of the complainant remained unrebutted and proved beyond doubt that the motorcycle of the complainant had been stolen from outside the restaurant, where complainant visited in the evening of 23.05.1998 in the town of Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The complainant, on being asked by the insurance company, furnished copy of the FIR, which was the relevant document in regard to the incident of theft and having received the same, the insurance company unduly delayed the finalization of the claim and thereby made deficiency in service and the District Forum was, thus, well within its right and jurisdiction to hold so and proceed to award compensation to the complainant. 6. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it was not in dispute that the vehicle was insured for sum of Rs. 40,000/- and the policy commenced from 30.03.1998 and was valid till 29.03.1999. Within two months of the issuance of the insurance policy, the vehicle had been stolen and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the insurance company’s surveyor Sh. Vipin Kumar Narula vide his report dated 23.11.1998 (Paper Nos. 77 to 79), was not justified in recommending settlement of the claim on present market value of Rs. 32,000/- of the vehicle. It has been stressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the insurance company is bound by the value put on vehicle while renewing the policy. [III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC); Dharmendra Goyal Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited]. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the District Forum was justified to hold that the complainant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/-, which was the insured value of the vehicle. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal fails and is dismissed with the direction that the costs and compensation awarded by the District Forum, shall be paid by the insurance company to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. The complainant shall within that period submit R.C. with transfer letter as well as ignition keys of the vehicle, if available with him, to the insurance company. No order as to costs.