M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 437/2019 Smt. Sunita W/o Rakesh Choudhary R/o 38, D.B.S., Scheme No.78 Indore (M.P.). ... Appellant VERSUS.

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.

Address – 3^rd floor, D.M. Tower Janjeerwal Chourahas New Palasia Indore (M.P.) ... Respondent BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI PRACHETA MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT. SHRI SUSHIL GOSWAMI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.

O R D E R

( 11.03.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 6.2.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.2, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 1010/2013, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by her.

2. Briefly put facts of the case are that the complainant’s truck bearing registration No. MP-09 HF 6544 was insured with the opposite party/respondent HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’), for the period from 4.2.2013 to 3.2.2014. On 15.2.2013, at 10 P.M. the driver parked the said truck and went for dinner and about 12 A.M. when he returned, the truck was not found. On 16.2.2013 complainant’s husband lodged complaint with the Police Station, Lusadia, Indore. When the vehicle was not traced, FIR regarding theft was registered on 15.3.2013. Final Report was filed in the matter on 20.9.2013. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company, with all requisite documents but the same was repudiated by the Insurance Company without any valid reason on 22.7.2013. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the Insurance Company, the complainant has filed the instant complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite party/Insurance Company resisted the complaint and in its reply before the District Commission submitted that FIR regarding theft was lodged after 29 days of the alleged incident. Immediate information was also not given to the Insurance Company. During investigation, the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company found that the driver had left the ignition key in the vehicle itself. It is further submitted that since the terms of the insurance policy were violated, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the District Commission has erred in observing that the complainant was using the subject vehicle for commercial purposes and therefore, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act, whereas this Commission, in Ram Pratap Singh vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Appeal No. 1555/2015, dated 10.11.2022), in view of law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Harsolia Motors vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC), has made an observation that the complainant/appellant is the ‘consumer’ of the Insurance Company. He further argued that FIR was lodged by Lusadia, Police Station only on 15.3.2013, after the police conducted the investigation, whereas the complainant had informed the police station much earlier, regarding the theft. Therefore, the alleged delay of 29 days in lodging FIR, was not caused at the complainant’s end and is arbitrary ground for repudiation taken by the Insurance Company. He also referred decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 4758 of 2023 decided on 31.7.2023) and submitted that leaving the key or alleged negligence does not constitute a fundamental breach sufficient to defeat a genuine theft claim. Whi