IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 15.03.2014 Date of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date of Decision: 13.02.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. - 268/2014 IN THE MATTER OF BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 7TH FLOOR, BLOCK NO. 4, DLF TOWER 15, SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110015.

(Through: Ms. Suman Bagga & Associates)

…Appellant VERSUS MOHD. LUKMAN, S/O MOHD. HADISH, R/O HOUSE NO. 359, VILLAGE SARHOLI, GURGAON.

(Through: Mohd. Sohail, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: Mr. Virender Prabhakar and Ms. Suman Bagga, counsel for the Appellant.

Respondent in person along with Mr. Matloob Alam, counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

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

“…the complaint of denial of theft of car insurance claim to complainant, whose car No.HR-55-GT-1518 was stolen on 20.2.2008, for which FIR u/s 379 was registered, vide exhibit CW 1/5. The insurance co. in its reply has justified the repudiation on the ground that the driver of the vehicle left the truck with ignition keeping in the car and left for taking tea. This is alleged as negligence. It relied on the statement of complainant and another Kasim Ali, as Exhibit RW 1/3 and RW 1/4 in support.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 20.09.2013, whereby it held as under:

“We have considered the reply, evidence and material on record and submissions. The OP has placed on record policy exhibit RW 1/2 in evidence. Sector 1 of the policy states the liability of the OP to indemnify the loss, in case of theft in terms of admissible deductions as provided. The OP has failed to show or rely on any exception to this rule.

The taking away of vehicles without consent of owner, by driving or otherwise is theft. We are unable to locate any clause permitting OP to escape liability on grounds taken by it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co., Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) 11 Supreme Court cases 259 section 257 has held that in case of theft breach of conditions is not germane. In view of this we hold repudiation arbitrary. Holding it guilty of deficiency, we direct OP to pay claim on standard basis as per rules with interest @ 9% from date of repudiation and pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal submitting that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that the driver of the insured vehicle failed to take minimum reasonable safeguard of the vehicle from loss and was grossly negligent while leaving the ignition key in the ignition switch which caused a willful breach of terms and conditions of the policy leading to the claim being repudiated. The counsel for the Appellant further submitted that there is no particular term and condition in the policy whereby the claim of the Respondent could be settled on standard basis. Pressing the aforesaid, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.

4. The Respondent, on the other hand has filed the reply to the present Appeal, whereby, denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said impugned order.

5. Both parties were directed to file written arguments on their behalf which have been filed by the Appellant and the Respondent whereby the Respondent has relied upon the following judgments in support of his case:

a) National insurance Co.