ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is complainant’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, thereby dismissing his consumer complaint No. 54 of 2011. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 31.08.2006, the complainant had purchased a Hyundai Santro car. The said vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 3 1.08.2009 to 30.0.2010 for sum of Rs. 2,45,000/-. On 06.04.2010, the complainant parked his vehicle outside his house, but the same was stolen in the night. The complainant lodged the FIR with the police. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company and completed all the formalities, but the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant has availed 20% No Claim Bonus and has obtained the policy by misrepresentation and fraud, hence the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 25.08.2010 and there has not been any deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 06.02.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The insurance of the subject vehicle is admitted. The theft of the subject vehicle during the validity of period of insurance is also admitted. The ground for repudiation of the claim taken by the insurance company is that the complainant has obtained the policy by misrepresentation and fraud and has wrongly availed the benefit of 20% No Claim Bonus. 7. We do not find any justification on the part of the insurance company to repudiate the claim of the complainant on the ground of misrepresentation that he has wrongly availed the benefit of No Claim Bonus. The reason being that the insurance company has not disputed the theft of the insured vehicle during the period of insurance. 7. We do not find any justification on the part of the insurance company to repudiate the claim of the complainant on the ground of misrepresentation that he has wrongly availed the benefit of No Claim Bonus. The reason being that the insurance company has not disputed the theft of the insured vehicle during the period of insurance. The police after investigation of the matter, has submitted the Final Report, which has been accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide order dated 23.11.2010. Therefore, the factum of theft of the insured vehicle is very well proved. The District Forum has opined that since the complainant has availed the benefit of No Claim Bonus and, as such, he is not entitled to the insured amount. The said finding recorded by the District Forum can not be appreciated and even otherwise, the factum of availing the benefit of No Claim Bonus does not have any nexus with the theft of the insured vehicle and the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company on the said ground does not seem to be logical and there has been deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant and the District Forum fell in error in recording the contrary finding and the order impugned passed by the District Forum suffer from legal infirmity and can not be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 8. So far as quantum is concerned, the vehicle was insured for sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- for the period from 31.08.2009 to 30.08.2010. It was stolen in the night of 06/07.04.20 10. Therefore, it was used for a period of more than seven months from the date of its insurance and, as such, some depreciation has to be made from the insured amount. In our view, depreciation @15% would be justified. This way, the complainant is to be held entitled to sum of Rs. 2,08,250/-(Rs. 2,45,000/- minus Rs. 36,750/-). Since the insurance company has made deficiency in service by wrongly repudiating the claim of the complainant and, as such, the complainant is entitled to interest on the above amount @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. 9. 2,08,250/-(Rs. 2,45,000/- minus Rs. 36,750/-). Since the insurance company has made deficiency in service by wrongly repudiating the claim of the complainant and, as such, the complainant is entitled to interest on the above amount @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal succeed and is to be allowed and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is to be set aside. 10. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 06.02.2012 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consumer complaint No. 54 of 2011 is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay sum of Rs.2,08,250/- to the appellant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.