Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is directed against order dated 1.11.2000, passed by District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1794/1999 — entitled Shri Rajbir Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant was the registered owner of vehicle bearing No. HR-46-8029, insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the period from 16.4.1998 to 15.4.1999 vide Cover Note No. 0073286 and Policy No. 31/98/1124 issued by the respondent. It was stated that the above said vehicle, insured with the respondent, was stolen on the night falling between 29th - 30th April, 1998 and a report regarding the theft of the vehicle in question was lodged with Police Station, Narela, Delhi vide FIR No. 146/1998 under Section 379, I.P.C. As the vehicle was insured with the respondent, the appellant also filed a claim with the respondent, who appointed a Surveyor by name Shri B.S. Khattar to investigate and assess the loss. The Surveyor submitted his report and on the basis of the report, submitted by Surveyor, the respondent repudiated the claim of the appellant. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum, it was stated that the Surveyor, who was appointed by the respondent, demanded illegal gratification and when the appellant did not oblige the Surveyor, the Surveyor submitted a false report to the effect that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle in question on the date of theft. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was prayed by the appellant that the respondent be directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, being the amount of insurance together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till realisation. The appellant also claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the alleged harassment together with cost of litigation.

3. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondent and in the written statement/written version, filed by the respondent the stand taken was that the appellant had concealed the material fact that he had already sold the vehicle in question and had no financial interest on the date when the alleged theft of the vehicle took place. It was also stated that the facts involved in the case were complicated and complex which cannot be gone into the proceedings before a Forum, established under the Act. It was also contended that the insurance of the vehicle, taken out by the appellant on 16.4.1998 for one year ending on 15.4.1999, was void ab initio as the appellant had already sold the vehicle in question in February, 1997 and was having no pecuniary interest in the vehicle. It was denied that the Surveyor appointed by the respondent made any illegal demand from the appellant.

4. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there are two versions about the ownership of the vehicle in question on the date of theft which require detailed examination which is not possible in the summary proceedings. On the basis of above findings, the learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant though giving the liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, a person, aggrieved by an order, made by the District Forum,