ORDER (Per : Justice B.C. Kandpal, President) This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the District Forum, Nainital, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 149 of 2006 and thereby directing the opposite party – insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 11,87,500/- to the complainants together with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 24.12.2005 till the date of actual payment; Rs. 20,000/- towards damages for mental agony and Rs. 1,500/- as litigation expenses. The complainants were directed to hand over the documents relating to the ownership of the subject vehicle to the insurance company within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. 2. Brief stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants are business partners and are registered co-owners of truck No. UA-04C-0604 and the same was insured with the insurance company for the period from 30.05.2005 to 29.05.2006. The said truck was financed by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, New Delhi. On 01.07.2005, the said truck was stolen and an FIR to this effect was lodged by the complainant with the P.S. Vilaspur, on which a criminal case was registered and after investigation, the final report was submitted in the court by the investigation officer, which was accepted by the Court. On 30.08.2005, the complainants gave intimation to the insurance company and submitted all the relevant papers. The insurance company appointed surveyor, but the claim was not settled. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainants filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital. 3. The insurance company filed written statement and pleaded that vide letter dated 18.12.2006, the complainants were asked to supply certain information, which they did not do. It was further pleaded that the name of the driver of the truck has not been mentioned, which creates suspicion. The complainants lodged an FIR on 09.07.2005, wherein it was mentioned that their truck was stolen somewhere between 01.07.2005 to 03.07.2005 from Vilaspur and on the basis of the said FIR. Case Crime No. 919 of 2005 was registered under Section 381 IPC against Sh. Bachan Singh R/o Katra, Jaalawad (Shahaspur). During investigation, the whereabouts of the driver were not found and the final report was submitted by the police. Case Crime No. 919 of 2005 was registered under Section 381 IPC against Sh. Bachan Singh R/o Katra, Jaalawad (Shahaspur). During investigation, the whereabouts of the driver were not found and the final report was submitted by the police. It was also pleaded that the complainants expressed their inability in intimating the residence of the driver and also in submitting the driving licence of the driver. The subject vehicle was purchased on 02.06.2005 from Sonipat after taking financial assistance from M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and it was mentioned by the complainants that the same was stolen in between 01.07.2005 to 03.07.2005 from the custody of Sh. Bachan Singh and sand was loaded in the truck. The truck was stolen within a period of one month from its purchase. The complainants were also asked to submit the duplicate keys of the vehicle, whereupon they told that only one key of the vehicle was provided to them. It was also submitted that the complainants have not co-operated with the insurance company and have not supplied the desired information. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the facts of the case and the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 29.11.2007 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the FIR in this case has been lodged with a delay of 6 days and the matter was informed to the insurance company after about more than one month and the consumer complaint filed by the complainants should have been dismissed on this ground alone. 6. We find no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The record reveals that the truck loaded with sand started journey on 01.07.2005 and it went missing between 01.07.2005 to 03.07.2005 from near about Vilaspur. The First Information Report with regard to the missing of the truck on the allegation that the same was stolen was filed by the complainants at Police Station Vilaspur (Rampur) on 09.07.2005. The First Information Report contains the fact that the complainants tried to search the truck and when they failed, only thereafter they lodged the FIR with the police. The First Information Report with regard to the missing of the truck on the allegation that the same was stolen was filed by the complainants at Police Station Vilaspur (Rampur) on 09.07.2005. The First Information Report contains the fact that the complainants tried to search the truck and when they failed, only thereafter they lodged the FIR with the police. It is true that the matter was reported by the complainants to the insurance company on 30.08.2005, but the important fact in this case is that after lodging the FIR, the police started investigating the matter and on account of the reason that the whereabouts of the truck could not be traced out by the police even after all the efforts and ultimately the police filed the final report before the court, which was accepted by the court. 7. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid ground in the matter of Devendra Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2004 NCJ 227 (NC) and Mohd. Mustafa Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. IV (2003) CPJ 12 (NC), provide no help to the insurance company, especially keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. The facts in the cited cases were absolutely different, while in the instant case, the fact is quite clear that the police filed the final report after complete investigation of the case and that final report was accepted by the court and only thereafter, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainants before the District Forum. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the incident of alleged theft has been committed within one month of the insurance, which makes the story of the complainants doubtful. It is also submitted that the complainants could not produce any document before the investigator pertaining to the construction of the body of the truck. It is also submitted that it was not possible to get the body of the truck constructed within a period of one month. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, again is devoid of any force. The complainants filed the affidavit of one Sh. Raees Ahmed, proprietor of Uttaranchal Body Repair, Bhotia Parao, Haldwani, District Nainital. It is also submitted that it was not possible to get the body of the truck constructed within a period of one month. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, again is devoid of any force. The complainants filed the affidavit of one Sh. Raees Ahmed, proprietor of Uttaranchal Body Repair, Bhotia Parao, Haldwani, District Nainital. This body repairer has clearly mentioned in this affidavit that he constructed the body of the new vehicle No. LPT2515 (10 wheeler) and received a sum of Rs. 1,47,000/- for the construction of the body. The insurance company did not file any document in rebuttal of the same before the District Forum and to our view, under these circumstances, the District Forum has rightly accepted the authenticity and genuineness of the aforesaid affidavit of Sh. Raees Ahmed. Further, the complainants have also filed the receipt issued by the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani, indicating therein that the truck in question was loaded with 151 quintals of sand on 01.07.2005. This receipt has also not been controverted or rebutted by the appellant in any manner. Hence, there is no question of disbelieving the said document. Further, it is also worthwhile to mention here that the truck could not have been loaded with sand without having a proper body over the same. 9. The insurance cover note which is available on record indicates that the policy covered the risk to the tune of Rs. 12,50,000/- and the estimated cost of the truck has been mentioned in the policy as Rs. 11,87,500/-. This fact indicates that the policy was issued to the insured in the beginning after assessing depreciation over the cost of the truck. The insurance policy has not been denied by the insurance company – appellant. It is, thus, clear that the truck in question was insured by the National Insurance Company Limited and it was stolen within a period of one month after its purchase. As a new truck was stolen and hence there is no question of depreciation in the value of the truck. The District Forum has rightly awarded sum of Rs. 11,87,500/- as compensation to the complainants. 10. As far as the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned, the same appears to be on the higher side. As a new truck was stolen and hence there is no question of depreciation in the value of the truck. The District Forum has rightly awarded sum of Rs. 11,87,500/- as compensation to the complainants. 10. As far as the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned, the same appears to be on the higher side. As per the rate of interest prevalent these days, the same should be 7% p.a. instead of 9% p.a., as has been awarded by the District Forum. 11. As the entire amount of Rs. 11,87,500/-, on which the truck was insured after assessing the depreciated value has been awarded to the complainants, therefore, there is no question of award of any amount under the head of mental agony. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the District Forum towards mental agony, appears to be unjustified. However, the amount of Rs. 1,500/- awarded by the District Forum towards litigation expenses, appears to be justified. The direction issued by the District Forum that the complainants shall submit entire papers pertaining to the ownership of the vehicle in question/letter of subrogation to the insurance company, so that in future if the vehicle is recovered, then in that case, the ownership would be that of the insurance company, is justified. 12. For the reasons stated above, appeal is partly allowed with the modification in the order of the District Forum that the compensation of Rs. 11,87,500/- awarded by the District Forum, shall remain the same. However, this amount shall be paid to the complainants along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment. The complainants shall also get a sum of Rs. 1,500/- towards litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum. The complainants are, however, not entitled to get sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony, as has been awarded by the District Forum. Costs of the appeal made easy.