ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 26.12.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 351/2012 title Ajay Singh Salwani vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Complainant Ajay Singh Salwani filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party pleaded therein that complainant was owner of Maruti Alto-LX Vehicle No. HP-01A-1254. It is pleaded that complainant insured vehicle from opposite party on dated 07.05.2010 in consideration amount of Rs. 100000/- (One lac). It is further pleaded that insurance premium was duly paid to the insurance company and insurance policy was operative from 08.05.2010 to 07.05.2011. It is further pleaded that vehicle No. HP-01A-1254 was forcibly taken by three unknown persons from the driver on dated 22.07.2010. It is further pleaded that driver was assaulted. It is further pleaded that information was given to opposite party and FIR was also filed. It is further pleaded that insurance company did not settle claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 100000/-(One lac) alongwith interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 12.10.2012 till the date of payment. In addition complainant also sought relief of payment of sum of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) as damages. In addition complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 11000/- (Eleven thousand). 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that opposite party did not repudiate claim of complainant. It is pleaded that complainant did not furnish requisite documents and it is further pleaded that opposite party has closed claim as no claim. It is admitted that vehicle was insured with opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) w.e.f 08.05.2010 to 07.05.2011. It is further pleaded that vehicle was financed by ICICI bank Shimla and ICICI bank Shimla is necessary party. It is further pleaded that vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. It is further pleaded that police official submitted cancellation report before competent Judicial Magistrate. It is further pleaded that insurance company appointed insurance investigator namely M.K. Chadha who had submitted investigation report to insurance company. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. It is further pleaded that police official submitted cancellation report before competent Judicial Magistrate. It is further pleaded that insurance company appointed insurance investigator namely M.K. Chadha who had submitted investigation report to insurance company. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) minus excess clause to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint within 45 days subject to furnishing letter of subrogation in favour of complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) as punitive compensation on account of harassment and mental agony. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would also pay sum of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) as litigation costs to the complainant. 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by insurance company is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 8. After perusal of complaint and after perusal of version filed by opposite party learned District Forum ordered the parties to adduce evidence qua controversial facts. Learned advocate appeared on behalf of complainant has given statement on dated 24.06.2014 before learned District Forum that complaint alongwith documents annexures C-1 to C-3 already filed be read in evidence and closed the evidence. 9. Opposite party filed affidavit of P.N. Bodh Senior Divisional Manager in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that version filed by opposite party alongwith annexures OP-1 to OP-9 be read in evidence as part and parcel of affidavit. There is further recital in the affidavit that after receipt of all documents claim of complainant was processed and it was found that complainant did not submit requisite documents and therefore claim was closed as no claim vide annexure OP-1. 10. Opposite party also filed affidavit of investigator namely M.K. Chadha in evidence. There is further recital in the affidavit that after receipt of all documents claim of complainant was processed and it was found that complainant did not submit requisite documents and therefore claim was closed as no claim vide annexure OP-1. 10. Opposite party also filed affidavit of investigator namely M.K. Chadha in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent was appointed by insurance company to investigate robbery claim of Alto Car No. HP-01A-1254. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent conducted investigation. There is further recital in the affidavit that investigation report annexure OP-8 is true and be read in evidence. State Commission has also perused annexures C-1 to C-3 filed by complainant and annexures OP-1 to OP-9 filed by opposite party carefully. 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that interest @ 9% per annum granted by learned District Forum is on higher side and same be reduced is decided accordingly. It is held that learned District Forum has not granted excessive rate of interest but has granted reasonable rate of interest and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the rate of interest granted by learned District Forum. 12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that vehicle was hypothecated with ICICI bank and ICICI bank is necessary party and amount should be directly paid by insurance company to the ICICI bank and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is held that ICICI bank has separate cause of action against complainant if any. It is held that insurance company could not plead case of ICICI bank. It is further held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to club independent cause of action of ICICI bank and insurance company in the present consumer complaint. State Commission has also perused insurance policy placed on record. As per insurance policy name of insured has been mentioned as Ajay Singh Salwani. It is held that privity of contract was executed between insurance company and Ajay Singh Salwani only as per insurance policy placed on record. 13. State Commission has also perused insurance policy placed on record. As per insurance policy name of insured has been mentioned as Ajay Singh Salwani. It is held that privity of contract was executed between insurance company and Ajay Singh Salwani only as per insurance policy placed on record. 13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum had ordered execution of subrogation letter in favour of complainant instead of in favour of insurance company and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is held that subrogation letter was ought to be executed in favour of insurance company because liability was imposed by learned District Forum to pay entire amount of IDV upon insurance company. 14. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complainant did not submit requisite documents demanded by insurance company and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that insurance company appointed Shri M.K. Chadha as insurance investigator and Shri M.K. Chadha has filed report on dated 24.12.2011. It is held that report submitted by Shri M.K. Chadha is binding upon insurance company. In the report Shri M.K. Chadha has specifically mentioned that insurance policy PCCV-4 wheelers-carrying passengers-capacity not exceeding 6 package policy - zone B was issued against comprehensive risks. It is proved on record that at the time of robbery of vehicle insurance policy issued by opposite party was in operation and insurance company has received premium to the tune of Rs. 6208/- (Six thousand two hundred eight) relating to own damage claim and relating to third party liability. Insurance investigator appointed by insurance company had received photostat copy of final report of police under section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 and even insurance investigator visited police station Pinjore and verified registration of FIR No. 132 dated 22.07.2010 under section 392 IPC. Even insurance investigator namely Shri M.K. Chadha has specifically mentioned in his report in positive manner that he also recorded statement of driver Shri Sushil Kumar. Investigator has specifically mentioned in his report that criminal case was registered in police station Pinjore District Panchkula vide FIR No. 132 dated 22.07.2010 under section 392 IPC. It is well settled law that in all robbery criminal cases there is either theft or extortion as per section 390 IPC. Investigator has specifically mentioned in his report that criminal case was registered in police station Pinjore District Panchkula vide FIR No. 132 dated 22.07.2010 under section 392 IPC. It is well settled law that in all robbery criminal cases there is either theft or extortion as per section 390 IPC. It is held that report submitted by investigator appointed by insurance company is binding upon insurance company unless contrary is proved against investigator and it is held that report submitted by investigator is substantial piece of evidence. See 2012 (1) CPJ 420 NC H.C. Saxena vs. New India Assurance Company Limited. See 2012 (4) CPJ 103 NC National Insurance Company Limited vs. Jyothi Tobacco Traders. See 2009 (3) CPJ 194 NC Nand Kishore Jaiswal vs. National Insurance Company Limited. 15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that vehicle was used for commercial purpose and did not fall within in the definition of consumer and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Service is defined under section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as per section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 service means service of any description given by insurance company. Hence it is held that case falls within the definition of section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. See 1991 (2) CPJ 700 NC S. Bhagat Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited . Point No. 1 is decidedly accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 16. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is partly allowed and it is ordered that complainant would execute letter of subrogation in favour of insurance company within one month. Order of learned District Forum that letter of subrogation would be executed in favour of complainant is set aside. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party would pay sum of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) minus excess clause to the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing complaint within 45 days is affirmed. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party would pay sum of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) as punitive compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment is also affirmed. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party would pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant is also affirmed. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. 10000/- (Ten thousand) as punitive compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment is also affirmed. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party would pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant is also affirmed. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. Report of insurance investigator annexure OP-8 dated 24.12.2011 will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.