IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 06.05.2017 Date of hearing: 16.09.2022 Date of Decision: 29.11.2022 FIRST APPEAL NO. 376/2017 IN THE MATTER OF BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE

12^TH FLOOR, DR. GOPALDAS BHAWAN, 28, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110001 (Through: ACM Legal …APPELLANT VERSUS MR. PREM KUMAR JAIN PROPREITOR OF M/S JAIN SCHOOL UNIFORM

81, VIJAY BLOCK, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI- 110092 (Through: Mr. Puneet Tandon. Advocate)

…RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present: None for the parties.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Forum record are:

“Facts in brief are that the complainant is a proprietor of a firm under name and style of "Jain School Uniform" and Toyoto Innova bearing registration no. DL7CG-5680 was insured in the name of the above said firm. The said vehicle was insured with OP vide policy no. OG-14-1101-1801- 00034538 with IDV of Rs. 7,00,000/- for a period from

25.12.2013 to 24.12.2014.

In the morning of 23.05.2014, the keys of the said vehicle were stolen and on the same day around at 21:15 hours, the vehicle was stolen from the house of the complainant. FIR no. 312/2014 was registered with P.S. Preet Vihar on the same day i.e. 23.05.2014. Untrace report was filed on 16.06.2014. OP was informed about the theft of the insured vehicle on 24.05.2014, but the claim for the same was rejected on the ground that the lockset was not changed and missing of the keys was not reported to the police authority.

Thus, the complainant has prayed for award of Rs. 7,00,000/- being the IDV of the insured vehicle, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and award of sum of Rs. 75,000/-.”

2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record, passed the judgment dated 23.07.2017, whereby it held as under:

“We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. It reveals that the complainant was prompt in informing the police authorities and OP regarding the theft of the insured vehicle as evident from Ex.CW1/2. Further Ex.RW1/2-investigator report also concludes that insured vehicle theft case was genuine and the claim could be settled after filing of necessary pending documents. The said report has not been challenged by either of the parties. The repudiation of claim by OP on the ground that there was delay in informing the theft or to get the lockset changed cannot be taken on the face of it. Therefore, based on the conclusion of investigator report, the present complaint is allowed.

Hence, we direct the complainant to complete all the formalities as required by OP for the settlement of the claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, OP shall settle the claim of Rs. 7,00,000/- being the IDV of the insured vehicle within 15 days from the date of completion of all the formalities by the complainant. We award Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony. Rs. 5,000/- are also awarded as cost of litigation.

Both the parties are directed to comply with the directions within time given by this Forum, failing which the awarded amount of Rs. 7,20,000/- will be payable with 9% interest p.a.

from the date of filing till realisation.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the District Forum, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Forum failed to consider that the Respondent had failed to exercise reasonable care to protect the Vehicle in question and thus violated the condition no. 4 of the said policy. He further submitted that the Respondent failed to take precautionary steps to protect the said vehicle after the loss of key of vehicle. The counsel for the appellant further argued that District Forum failed to consider the Inv