STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Institution: 20.05.2016 Date of Final Hearing: 16.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 17.05.2023 First Appeal No. 32 / 2015 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

B-9A, Second Floor, Durga City Centre, Haldwani District Nainital (Through: Ms. Alka Chopra, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS Sh. Sudhanshu Sheel S/o Sh. Buddhu Sheel R/o Sanjay Nagar, Ward No. 3, Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar (Through: Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate)

….. Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):

This appeal under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 18 of 2014 styled as Sh. Sudhanshu Sheel Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are as such that the respondent – complainant Sh. Sudhanshu Sheel’s driver Sh. Kishore Mandal was going to Mathura on 03.08.2013 at about 5:00pm and he started his journey from Rudrapur in Bolero No. UK06-Y-8875. When he reached near Hathras at about 12:30am, he stopped the vehicle for having some tea and refreshment at Sisodia Hotel, Sikandra Rao Road, Hathras. When the driver parked the insured vehicle; the driver properly locked and switched of the engine. The driver had taken the vehicle’s key from the ignition point and kept safely in his possession. After 5 to 10 minutes, when he came near the vehicle, he found that the vehicle in question was stolen by some unknown miscreants. The vehicle was searched, but it was not traceable even after several efforts. The driver informed the incident of theft to the respondent - complainant and the respondent – complainant has also reached immediately at the spot on dated 04.08.2013, but inspite of several efforts, stolen vehicle was not traceable. The incident of theft was reported to the Police Station, Hasayan District Hathras and the FIR was lodged. The police also searched the vehicle, but the department could not trace the stolen vehicle, consequently the Final Report on dated 30.09.2013 was submitted to the Criminal Court. After submission of final report, the respondent – complainant submitted his claim to the insurance company which was repudiated against the respondent – complainant alleging that the key of the vehicle in question was left in the ignition point of the vehicle; doors of the vehicle in question was not properly locked when it was parked in front of the Sisodia Hotel; there was no negligence on the part of the driver. In such circumstances, the respondent – complainant has brought the complaint.

3. In the written statement, the appellant – opposite party has stated that it is true that the vehicle in question was insured with the answering opposite party and during currency of the insurance the alleged incident took place. It is further pleaded in the written statement that the vehicle was stolen by the gross negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle by parking it unattended and left the starting key in the ignition switch so anybody can drive the vehicle. It is also alleged in the written statement of the answering opposite party that as per the condition No. 5 of the insurance policy, the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if vehicle insured be driven before t