IMPORTANT POINT
If terms of the contract are violated, complaint deserves to be dismissed.

M. Shreesha, Member—Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is to the order dated 09.06.2015, in First Appeal No.15/2, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Forum that the repudiation of the claim of the Petitioner by the Insurance

2. Company was justified as the Insured had violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not taking reasonable care of the vehicle in question.

3. For the sake of convenience, the Petitioner hereinafter is referred to as the ‘Complainant’ and the Respondent as the ‘Insurance Company’.

4. The facts material to the case are that the Complainant M/s Keer Hotels Private Limited had taken an Auto Secure Policy for the period 02.03.2013 to 01.03.2014, for its Innova vehicle for an insured amount of Rs.3,58,789/-. On 01.05.2013, around 5:45 a.m., the driver of the Complainant Mr. Sunder Mutuswamy, went to drop a client of the Hotel at the airport and on the way back he had left the vehicle at Vile Parle, with the engine in an idling condition, to attend to nature’s call. It was averred that suddenly a Tata Indica car halted near the subject vehicle and one man got down from the car and drove away with the insured vehicle. An FIR was also immediately lodged at the Vile Parle Police Station. It was averred that the Complainant made several efforts to search for the vehicle but could not trace the same. Thereafter, on 22.05.2013, a claim was filed with the Insurance Company for reimbursement of the stolen vehicle. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the Complainant had violated condition No.4 of the policy by not taking reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from any loss or damage. Hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the insured amount of Rs.3,58,789/- as compensation with Rs.5,000 as costs.

5. The Insurance Company filed their Written Version admitting to the issuance of the Auto Secure Policy for the period from 03.02.2013 to 01.03.2014 for an IDV of Rs.3,58,789/-. It was averred that the repudiation was justified as the Complainant had violated condition no.4 of the policy which states that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss and damage. It was submitted that due diligence was not observed as the vehicle was left unlocked, while it was parked. The driver of the insured vehicle left the keys in the ignition with the engine in an idling condition, on account of which the vehicle was stolen. It was further pleaded that the Complainant has also violated condition No.8 of the policy which reads as hereunder:

Condition No.8: - “The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and Endorsements of this Policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy.”

6. The Complainant was conveyed the violation of the afore-noted condition vide repudiation letter dated 22.05.2013 and again vide letter dated 18.06.2013. It was pleaded that the events suggest that the action was not only reckless but also a breach of provisions of Motors Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 126 of which reads as under:

126. Stationary Vehicles: No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place, unless there is in the driver’s seat a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a brake or brakes applied or such other measures taken as to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidently be put in motion in the absence of the driver.”

7. Based on the evidence adduced