Justice S.K. Kulshreshtha, President:

1. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 22.4.2008 passed by the District Forum, Gwalior in case No. 737/2007. Facts have been taken from appeal No. 1 1402/08 for convenience unless otherwise stated.

2. The complainant - Arvind Bhushan Dwivedi filed a complaint against the opposite party - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. for recovery of a sum of र 2,50,000 and interest. It was stated that his vehicle Tata Safari bearing registration No. MP 30-D/0368 was insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company for the period 29.12.2006 to 28.12.2007. A claim was made about the damage caused in accident to the vehicle about which the Insurance Company has said that after inquiry the same will be settled. However, in the earlier complaint filed, the District Forum vide order dated 9.7.2007 passed in case No. 79/2007 directed that on survey of the vehicle the opposite party-Insurance Company shall decide the claim in accordance with the rules. The opposite party expressed its view that the claim was investigated as per the orders passed by the District Forum and it was found that no incident had taken place on 15.1.2007. The District Forum was of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant becomes entitled to get the vehicle surveyed and the damage assessed. In this backdrop the District Forum directed that investigation be conducted by some retired Police Officer to assess the damage if any, who shall take decision and communicate the same. A sum of र 10,000 was directed to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant as compensation and र 1,000 as costs.

3. During this appeal, number of opportunities were granted to the complainant to produce the vehicle for Surveyor's inspection to enable him to give survey report, but, it is alleged that letters had to be sent to the effect that circumstances were created causing impediment in the survey of the vehicle. Today also we inquired from the learned Counsel for the complainant whether he will be in a position to produce the vehicle for survey but, he has informed that the vehicle

has now been stolen and shown FIR in that behalf. 4. Since the vehicle has been stolen it is not possible to survey the vehicle and to assess the damage. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.