IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 06.01.2024 Date of Hearing: 16.01.2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 8/2024 IN THE MATTER OF MR. RAJA SINGH YADAV S/O MR. GYAN SINGH YADAV, R/O H.NO. 320, CHIRAG DELHI, NEW DELHI-110076 .…APPELLANT (THROUGH :Mr. Vishal Dabas, Mr. Hemant Chauhan and Mr. Kunal Masiwal, Advocates, Mob.9873976214 &

Email: mail@vdlegal.in)

VERSUS IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGD. OFFICE IFFCO SADAN, C-1, DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI ALSO AT DELHI CSC, UNIT NO. A & B, 4, 3RD FLOOR, TDI CENTRE, JASOLA METRO STATION, NEW DELHI-110025 ….RESPONDENT (THROUGH : Mr. Faran Ahmed, Advocate Mob.9811386580 &

Email: faranahmed.adv@gmail.com)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Aishwarya Sharma counsel for the appellant.

(Mob.7415720237 &

Email: aishwaryasharma74157@gmail.com)

Mr. Faran Ahmed, counsel for the respondent.

PER : HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

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

“The complainant had insured his vehicle bearing Regd. No.DL-3CCK-3754 vide policy No.95214667 which was purchased on 22.11.2015 covering the period 22.11.2015 to 21.11.2016. It was stated that the said car was parked Opp. Kamal Cinema near DDA Park – SJ Enclave, New Delhi-110029. The said vehicle was stolen from therein on 30.08.2016. The complainant registered an FIR No.025503/16 on 31.08.2016. The copy of the same is enclosed at Annexure-B. The untraced report was issued by the Hon’ble Court of Shri Sandeep Garg, South-East District, Saket vide order dated 01.10.2016. The complainant filed claim for the said vehicle vide claim No.36751218. The said claim was rejected by OP. As per policy, the IDV for the said vehicle was Rs.5,69,478/-.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated

31.10.2023, whereby it held as follows:

“This Commission has gone into the entire material placed on record Due consideration was given to the arguments. The grievance of the complainant was the repudiation of the claim for theft of vehicle. The complainant had alleged that one of the employees of the OP, had demanded Rs.25,000/- for settlement of the claim and he took Rs.5,000/- from the complainant.

However, there is no evidence to this effect.

The OP had taken the ground for breach of condition No.4 of Terms & Conditions of the Policy. The relevant portion of the said condition No.4 is reproduced above. The vehicle was left unattended so much so, key was left in ignition switch. The complainant had not stated in its complaint why the said vehicle was left there whereas the complainant had shown his residence at Chirag Delhi which is faraway from this place of theft.

This Commission has arrived at this conclusion that there is no doubt to this effect that said vehicle was stolen from the place and untraced report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. is on record. However, there is no mention about the intimation of theft of vehicle to the OP, as and when, the OP was intimated. The complainant had not stated in its complaint why the vehicle was parked opp Kamal Cinema, near DDA Market, Safdarjang Enclave. Considering the facts, we are of the considered view that there had been no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed/rejected.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:-

“I. Because the Ld. District Forum has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner.

II. Because the Ld. District Forum has not considered the documents and evidence filed by the Complainant.

III. Because the Ld. District Forum has erred in passing the impugned order by not considering the facts stated by the Complainant in the complaint.

IV. Because the Ld. District Forum has failed to consider th