ORDER

Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II.—The appeal No. 78 of 2015 has been preferred, challenging the impugned judgment dated 07.04.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 47 of 2010, wherein the District Forum has directed the Royal Sundram Insurance Company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 6,36,120/- (Rupees Six Lakh Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty only) alongwith Rs. 25,000/- as damages and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. Because both the appeals have arisen from the same impugned judgment, therefore, it is just and convenient to decide them together.

3. It is further to add that for the sake of convenience, the complainant Smt. Jasvinder Kaur – appellant in First Appeal No. 81 of 2015 and respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 78 of 2015 as well as opposite party No. 1 - Royal Sundram Insurance Co. Ltd. – appellant in First Appeal No. 78 of 2015 & respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 81 of 2015 and opposite party No. 2 - HDFC Bank – respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No. 81 of 2015 hereinafter referred to as complainant, opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 respectively.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant filed a consumer complaint No. 47 of 2010 alleging deficiency in service on the part of Royal Sundram Insurance Co. Ltd. – opposite party No. 1 for denying the claim of the complainant. Earlier the claim of the complaint was decreed ex-parte against the opposite party No. 1 on 29.10.2010 and the District Consumer Forum has directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay the insured amount alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint. Then the opposite party No. 1 preferred an appeal against the order dated 29.10.2010 and the matter was remanded back to the District Consumer Forum by the appellate court vide its order dated 07.10.2014. On the remand of the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, the Forum afforded an opportunity to the opposite parties to adduce defence evidence of opposite party No. 1 and after the close of the evidence of the opposite parties, the District Consumer Forum heard both the parties and decided the matter on merits vide impugned judgment, against which the present both the appeals have been preferred before this Commission.

5. In the consumer complaint, the complainant has alleged that she purchased a Tata Safari vehicle for a sum of Rs. 7,41,000/- in the year 2008 by availing finance of Rs. 5,50,000/- from the opposite party No. 2 – HDFC Bank, which was registered vide registration No. UK07-V-9999, and the complainant also paid an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- for its registration, Rs. 22,000/- for its insurance and Rs. 10,000/- for royalty of number of the said vehicle. The aforesaid vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 24.02.2009 and the complainant immediately gave an information of the fact to the SHO, Police Station, Dalanwala, Dehradun as well as to senior police authorities. Immediate information was also given on 24.02.2009 to the police control room and the police immediately issued a wireless message in this regard. When inspite of several efforts, the police could not trace the said vehicle, the final report was submitted by the police in the court of CJM, Dehradun. It is further alleged in the complaint that after the theft of the vehicle, the complainant also informed the branch office of the Insurance Company at Dehradun vide its toll-free number 18003458899. The complainant had been following up the matter with the opposite party No. 1 and in the month of October, 2009, the opposite party No. 1 took the original registration certificate (RC) of the vehicle in question from the complainant and assured her to settle the matter at the earliest, but even after the expiry of one month, the matter was not settled. After several requests and submission, the insurance company has informed the complainant regretting inc