IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Opp. Party repudiated the claim on account of negligence of the Petitioner, who failed to take care of the vehicle, in violation of the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy.
2) Opp. Party repudiated the claim relying on the judgment of this Commission in “Devinder Kumar vs. NIC”, RP No.3840/2011, which was justified

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 07.08.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (for short “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 185 of 2014.

2. Along with the Revision Petition, IA/852/2014, an application for condonation of delay of 70 days has also been filed by the Petitioner. However, as per computation done by the Registry, there is a delay of 30 days. For the reasons mentioned in the application and in the interest of justice, IA/852/2014 is allowed and delay condoned.

3. The case of the Complainant/ Petitioner is that he purchased an Indigo CS-LS TDI car, bearing Chassis No. MAT607146CWE31049 and Engine No.475IDT14EXYP35248, on 22.10.2012 for a consideration of Rs.5,44,111/- from Hi-Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd., NH-21, Lunapani, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. The vehicle was allotted temporary number HP-33A-9299 which was insured with the Opposite Party, vide Policy No.25331031126120065990, for Rs.5,16,905/- by paying premium of Rs.18,814/- on 22.10.2012 and valid from 22.10.2012 to 21.10.2013. On 31.10.2012, the Complainant had gone to the election office of Bhartia Janta Party at Bhangrotu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., and parked the vehicle near the election office. The Complainant, in haste left the keys inside the car and in that moment the door got closed which automatically locked the vehicle. The house of the Complainant was at a distance of 5 km, so he decided to bring the second key by evening and joined the election campaign. The Complainant passed Bhangrotu around 11:40 A.M and noticed that his vehicle was parked at the same place. When he came back in the evening with second key from his house, the vehicle was found missing. The Complainant searched for the vehicle at his own level but when he failed to trace it, lodged FIR No.321/2012, dated 01.11.2012 at Police Station Bahl, Mandi, H.P. Intimation of theft was given to the Opposite Party who appointed Surveyor. All the documents sought by the Surveyor were supplied to him. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 27.12.2011, sought some queries from the Complainant which was duly replied by the Complainant, vide letter 15.01.2013. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 12.03.2013, repudiated the claim on the ground of negligence of the Complainant. In the repudiation letter, Opposite Party referred the judgement of this Commission in “Devinder Kumar vs. NIC”, RP No.3840/2011. Aggrieved by the Repudiation, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint No.132 of 2013 before the District Forum with following prayer: -

i. The opposite-party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.5,44,111/- of the cost of vehicle to the complainant along with Insurance premium of Rs.18,814/- along with interest @ 18 % P.A w.e.f. 31.10.2012 till payment;

ii. The Complainant may kindly be awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite-parties, on account of deficiency in service and causing harassment, mental tension etc. to the complainant; besides the damages to the tune of Rs.2 Lac/-; and/or

iii. Any other relief, to which the complainant may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted along with the costs of the complaint to the tune of Rs.20,000/- in the interest of justice and justice be done.

4. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party/ Respondent by filing reply stating that the Complaint was not maintainable as liability of Insurance Company was contractual. It was alleged that the Complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Policy. The Complainant failed to take reasonable precaution/care to protect the insured car as ‘Key of Vehicle’ was left in ignition of vehicle and vehicle was left unattended for 13 hours (From 6.20 AM to 7.30 PM) on the road /NH-21. The claim was, therefore, not payable.

5. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and perusin