Insurance companies must abide by the grounds stated in their repudiation letters, and cannot introduce new defenses post-repudiation.

1. The present Appeal, under S.51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short the Act) has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 13.2.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (for short the State Commission) in Complaint No. 27 of 2019 whereby the Complaint of the Respondent / Complainant was allowed and the following directions were given:
23. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is initially accepted and passed the direction in order, that:
1. The Opposite Party Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 23,92,500 (Twenty three lakh ninety two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant within 45 (forty five) days;
2. The Opposite Party Insurance Company is also directed to pay the interest yearly 6 per cent calculated on Rs. 23,92,500 (Twenty three lakh ninety two thousand five hundred only) from the date of institution of case dated 30.5.2019.
3. The Opposite Party Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation on mental agony, 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) and the cost of the litigation 3,000 (Rupees three thousand) to the complainant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a vehicle No. CG 07 BA / 8577 and the same was insured with the Appellant against theft. During the validity of the insurance policy, on the intervening night of 7th and 8 th October, 2017, the vehicle got stolen from the roadside. An FIR of theft was registered on 9.10.2017 and the Appellant was also immediately informed of the theft and the claim was also filed. The claim of the Respondent was, however, repudiated by the Appellant on the ground that the Complainant was guilty of violation of Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the policy. Aggrieved, the Respondent / Complainant filed the Complaint before the State Commission.

3. The case of the Complainant before the State Commission was that his vehicle when being driven on road developed some fault, probably in the clutch plate and therefore, the vehicle could not be driven further. The vehicle was then parked on the roadside and a search for mechanic was made. However, it was found that the vehicle had been stolen.

4. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for claim of insured vehicle. The claim was repudiated only on the ground of violation of the Clause 5 of the insurance policy.

5. Parties led their evidences before the State Commission. The State Commission after appreciating the evidences on record and hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and going through the case laws relied upon by the parties has held as under:
19. The claim submitted by the complainant has been rejected by the Opposite Party Insurance Company due to breach of condition point No. 5 of the insurance contract, according to which the complainant himself will be responsible for the loss incurred because the complainant has not been taken adequate security measures, for which it is said that the complainant is responsible for that loss. The First Information Report (annexed hereto Annexure C - 6) and O.P. - 2) lodged by driver Nathuram Juganlal Dewang stated in brief that:
on 6.10.2017, as on instructions of the owner, I was directed, came to Nagpur, so after reaching in Nagpur I met his friend on 7.10.2017, when that time after meeting he said, got to Bhandara to load the sand dust on truck. At the behest of him, I have been decided to depart from Nagpur in the evening at 05/06, then, I carried out the vehicle from that place of his house, but while going to Bhandara, I stopped the truck just after crossing the bridge pulia at around 6/00 hrs due to me