ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 20.10.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.148/2011 title Jai Mata Durga Transport Company vs. New India Assurance Company Limited. Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Complainant Jai Mata Durga Transport Company filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party pleaded therein that complainant is owner of truck No. HR-37B-3545. It is pleaded that vehicle was duly insured with opposite party vide insurance policy No. 352404/31/05/01/000001509 w.e.f. 17.06.2005 to 16.06.2006 in consideration amount of Rs. 1545500/- (Fifteen lac forty five thousand five hundred). It is further pleaded that premium to the tune of Rs. 36721/- (Thirty six thousand seven hundred twenty one) was also paid. It is further pleaded that when truck was on its way to Bulandshehar (U.P.) it was stolen by some unknown persons on dated 26.11.2005. It is further pleaded that copy of FIR, copy of investigation report, copy of RC, copy of driving licence and all other documents were supplied to the opposite party. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of theft claim of vehicle. In addition complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) on account of harassment. In addition complainant sought legal fees for notice to the tune of Rs. 1100/- (One thousand one hundred). In addition complainant sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that District Forum Bilaspur has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complaint is barred by limitation. It is further pleaded that intricate questions of facts and law are involved in the complaint. It is pleaded that vehicle was stolen on dated 26.11.2005 and report was filed in the police station on dated 07.12.2005. It is further pleaded that chassis number and engine number of the vehicle in the FIR and RC differ. It is further pleaded that complainant did not complete the formalities of settlement of claim and claim of complainant was repudiated as no-claim on dated 29.06.2007. It is further pleaded that chassis number and engine number of the vehicle in the FIR and RC differ. It is further pleaded that complainant did not complete the formalities of settlement of claim and claim of complainant was repudiated as no-claim on dated 29.06.2007. It is further pleaded that complainant was also intimated through courier about the repudiation of claim as no-claim. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint as time barred. 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether repudiation of claim by insurance company annexure C-18 dated 29.06.2007 is interim in nature and whether cause of action to complainant is continuing cause of action? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed affidavit of Ashok Kumar in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is serving in the office of complainant. There is recital in the affidavit that on dated 26.11.2005 truck No. HR-37B-3545 was parked on the road near Vijay Nagar and same was stolen by some unknown persons. There is further recital in the affidavit that report was also filed in the police station. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent was told to mention the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle. There is further recital in the affidavit that inadvertently deponent disclosed the engine number and chassis number of other truck of company which was owned by complainant company. There is further recital in the affidavit that factually truck No. HR-37B-3545 was stolen. 9. Complainant filed affidavit of Ramesh Chand proprietor of Jai Mata Durga Transport Company in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that vehicle was insured with opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 1545500/- (Fifteen lac forty five thousand five hundred) w.e.f. 17.06.2005 to 16.06.2006. There is further recital in the affidavit that theft of vehicle was committed by unknown persons when truck was on its way to Bulandshaher (U.P.). There is further recital in the affidavit that all formalities were completed but insurance company did not settle the claim. 1545500/- (Fifteen lac forty five thousand five hundred) w.e.f. 17.06.2005 to 16.06.2006. There is further recital in the affidavit that theft of vehicle was committed by unknown persons when truck was on its way to Bulandshaher (U.P.). There is further recital in the affidavit that all formalities were completed but insurance company did not settle the claim. There is further recital in the affidavit that insurance company has committed deficiency in service. 10. Opposite party filed affidavit of B.S. Kapoor D.M. in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that complaint is barred by limitation. There is further recital in the affidavit that claim of complainant was settled as no claim on dated 29.06.2007. There is further recital in the affidavit that vehicle was stolen on dated 26.11.2005 and police report was filed on dated 07.12.2005. There is further recital in the affidavit that there was difference in the engine number and chassis number in the FIR and RC. There is further recital in the affidavit that FIR was lodged by one Nitin Kumar who was not travelling in the vehicle at the time of theft. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant was intimated about the decision of insurance vide letter dated 29.06.2007 through courier. 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that repudiation letter annexure C-18 dated 29.06.2007 is only interim in nature and not final repudiation letter on behalf of insurance company and cause of action to complainant is continuing cause of action is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that theft of vehicle took place on dated 26.11.2005 at Bulandshehar (U.P.). It is proved on record that on dated 29.06.2007 opposite party issued annexure C-18. Annexure C-18 is quoted in toto: The New India Assurance Co. Limited Branch Office: Main Market Bilaspur-174001 (H.P.) Ph.: 01978-222497 Fax: 01978-222504 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Office Code: 352404 Office Name: The New India Assurance Company Limited Address: Main Market Bilaspur H.P. Tel/Fax: 22504, 22497 Without Prejudice By Courier Service-Regd. A/d Ref. No.-------- Date : 29/06/2007 To M/S Jai Mata Durga Transport Co. Ropar Dist. : RUPNAGAR PUNJAB Dear Sirs, Re : Your claim No. 352404/31/05/01/90000291 Srl. No. : 1 on policy No.352404/31/05/01/00001509 Please note that your file stands closed on account of Sr. A/d Ref. No.-------- Date : 29/06/2007 To M/S Jai Mata Durga Transport Co. Ropar Dist. : RUPNAGAR PUNJAB Dear Sirs, Re : Your claim No. 352404/31/05/01/90000291 Srl. No. : 1 on policy No.352404/31/05/01/00001509 Please note that your file stands closed on account of Sr. No.1 and 3 below :- (1) Inspite of letters/reminders sent to you you have not complied with the required papers/documents. (2) As you have withdrawn your claim by giving your consent through your letter dated_we are closing your claim-file as NO CLAIM. (3) We are closing your claim-file on account of the following reason :- Claim filed as ''NO CLAIM'' due to non-submission of claim papers by the Insured and also as per telephonic instructions from DO/RO and shall be reopened after receipt of Action Taken Report of Court from the Insured. We absolve ourselves from any further liabilities, arising out of this claim which please note. Thanking You. Yours faithfully, Seal of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Sd/-(Mr. K.B. Chandel) Sr. Divisional Manager/Sr./Branch Manager. 12. There is positive recital in letter annexure C-18 that matter shall be reopened after receipt of action taken report of Court. Thereafter police submitted report before Judicial Magistrate for cancellation of FIR and Judicial Magistrate accepted the report of police officials relating of cancellation of FIR on dated 26.11.2007 vide annexure C-17. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company has conditionally closed the claim on dated 29.06.2007 in interim manner only with rider that matter would be reopened after the receipt of action taken report of court. Insurance company did not reopen the matter after the decision of court on dated 26.11.2007 for fresh decision. State Commission is of the opinion that order of insurance company that matter would be reopened after receipt of action taken report is only interim in nature and not final repudiation order in nature. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company could not be allowed to flout the terms and conditions of letter dated 29.06.2007. In view of the fact that insurance company has itself admitted that matter would be reopened after the receipt of action taken report of court State Commission is of the opinion that cause of action is continuing in nature as of today. In view of the fact that insurance company has itself admitted that matter would be reopened after the receipt of action taken report of court State Commission is of the opinion that cause of action is continuing in nature as of today. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that insurance company has reopened the matter after the receipt of action taken report of Court. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company has not finally repudiated the claim of complainant and it is well settled law that limitation starts from the final repudiation of claim by insurance company and did not start from interim stop gap order of repudiation. In the present consumer complaint final repudiation has not been done by insurance company and only interim repudiation was done by insurance company as stop gap arrangement. 13. It is held that cause of action to the complainant is recurring in nature as of today in view of condition mentioned in annexure C-18 issued by insurance company that matter would be reopened after receipt of ATR from court. 14. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that cause of action is not in continuity nature vide letter dated 29.06.2007 annexure C-18 issued by insurance company is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that party could not be allowed to approbate or reprobate at the same time. See AIR 1993 SC 352 R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir . Insurance company has itself mentioned in the letter annexure C-18 dated 29.06.2007 that matter would be reopened after the receipt of action taken report of court. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to allow the insurance company to back out from the condition mentioned in letter dated 29.06.2007 annexure C-18. Insurance company did not take any action after final order of court dated 26.11.2007 annexure C-17. See 1999 (2) CPJ 13 NC State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Ananda Mohan Saha . See 2017 (2) CPR 130 NC Rita Chatterjee & Anr. vs. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Limited & Ors.. See 1998 (2) CPC 507 Chandigarh Gurbax Singh vs. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. See 2005 (1) CPC 585 Chandigarh H.M.T. Limited & Anr. vs. Ramesh Kumar. vs. Ananda Mohan Saha . See 2017 (2) CPR 130 NC Rita Chatterjee & Anr. vs. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Limited & Ors.. See 1998 (2) CPC 507 Chandigarh Gurbax Singh vs. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. See 2005 (1) CPC 585 Chandigarh H.M.T. Limited & Anr. vs. Ramesh Kumar. See 2000 (2) CpJ 254 M.P. Ishwar Chandra Gangrade & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. See 2004 (1) CPC 220 Maharashtra P. Gopakrishna Nair vs. Sunrise Builders. See 2001 (1) CPC 14 U.P. Executive Engineer UPSEB & Anr. vs. President Nagar Panchayat. See 1998 (2) CPC 577 NC Time Properties and Promotors Etc. vs. Rakesh Jain. See 2002 (3) CPJ 150 Kerla James K. Daniel & Anr. vs. Jayalekshmi Builders Pvt. Ltd. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 15. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is allowed. Order of learned District Forum dated 20.10.2016 announced in consumer complaint No.148/2011 title Jai Mata Durga Transport Company vs. New India Assurance Company Limited is set aside and it is held that repudiation letter annexure C-18 dated 29.06.2007 issued by insurance company is only interim repudiation letter in nature and not final repudiation letter in nature. It is held that cause of action to complainant is continuity in nature as of today in the absence of final repudiation letter by insurance company. Present consumer complaint is remanded back to learned District Forum for disposal afresh on merits strictly in accordance with law. Letters annexures C-17 & C-18 shall form part and parcel of order. Learned District Forum shall dispose of consumer complaint on merits within two months after receipt of file from State Commission. Observations will not effect merits of present consumer complaint in any manner. 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.