IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 26.03.2024 Date of Hearing: 06.02.2026 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 216/2024 IN THE MATTER OF MR. RAMESH RAWAT, R/O. B-40/A, KHANPUR EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-110062.

(Through: Mr. Achin Goel, Mr. Yogesh Kaushik & Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocates) …Appellant VERSUS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 1215, NAURANG HOUSE, 21, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

(Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Mittal, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: None for the Appellant.

Mr. Amit Kumar Mittal, counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

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

“Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking direction to OP to process the claim of the complainant of Rs. 6,32,814/- along with the interest and a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Complainant also seeks litigation expenditure of Rs.

40,000/-.

1. It is stated by the complainant that he took an insurance policy from the OP for his vehicle make Maruti Vitara Brezza, the policy is annexed as annexure-B. The IDV of the vehicle was fixed Rs.6,32,814/- for the period between the 12.04.2018 to 11.04 2019.

2. The vehicle was stolen on 01.04.2019 and on the same day e/FIR No.011524 dated 01.04.2019 was registered with the Police Station, Malviya Nagar, it is annexed as Annexure-C. The theft of the vehicle was duly informed to the OP and a surveyor was appointed.

3. The Surveyor collected all documents and formalities were completed within stipulated period. The SHO e-Police Station Malviya Nagar filed untrace report and the same was accepted by the Hon'ble ACMM-01. It is annexed as annexure-D.

4. It is further stated that OP declined the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 06.11.2019 stating that “as per the manner of loss as reported by you, the vehicle on the date of incident was parked on the road outside the house and in the morning it was noticed to be stolen. A FIR in this regard was also registered in the concerned Police Station. As per the FIR one original key was also lost ----. The condition 5 of the policy required that you shall take utmost care to avoid loss. That contrary to the above, you parked the vehicle at a distance and also left one original key inside the vehicle which led to the loss. That by doing so, you had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy”.

5. In its reply OP has stated that the complainant has mis- represented information to approach the Commission and that the present complaint is filed with the ill-motive to get insurance money from the OP even though the loss of vehicle is attributable to the negligence of the complainant himself.

6. It is further stated by the OP that FIR clearly states one original key of the car was also lost which evidences the fact that complainant had left his key inside the car. This act of the complainant amounts to negligence. The complainant has also stated on affidavit that "my original key was inside the car as the original was left in the court due to remote problem. Copy of the said affidavit is annexed as annexure R-3.

7. Further, the OP has recorded the statement of the son of the complainant who was using the car and stated that "My house in the narrow street and four wheel vehicle cannot be taken in, therefore I had been parking it out of the street". This statement of the son of the complainant shows that the car was parked far away at a distance which amounts to gross negligence. Copy of the statement of the son of the complainant is annexed as annexure R-4. It is further stated by the OP that they have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 06.11.2019 based on condition No.5 of the Policy.

8. OP has further relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insur