ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Member

We heard learned counsel for the revisionist – insurance co. and the respondent no. 1 – complainant, and perused the material on record.

The respondent no. 2 – financial institution is being proceeded against ex parte.

2. The dispute relates to repudiation of an insurance claim regarding theft of a vehicle.

The theft occurred in 2010, we are in 2019.

3. The District Forum had heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 26.11.2015, allowed the complaint and ordered the insurance co. to pay 75% of the insured declared value on non-standard basis:

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.

5. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that he got insured his vehicle bearing Regd. No. HR-55J-3663 vide policy No. 102015 which was