IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution : 02.08.2016 Date of Reserving the order : 04.12.2025 Date of Decision : 25.03.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO.-365/2016 IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGER, DIVISION/ ISSUING BRANCH, 26, 2ND FLOOR, EMCA HOUSE, 23-23-B, ANSARI ROAD, DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI …APPELLANT (Through: Mr. Ankur Jaitly, Advocate Mob.9711194078)

VERSUS MR. KULDEEP SINGH S/O MR. DHARAM SINGH R/O FLAT NO.6, MAUSARRI APARTMENT, WEST ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI-110034 ……RESPONDENT (Through: Mr. Ravindera Aggarwal &

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates Mob:9899252020)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL PRESIDENT HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present : Mr. Ankur Jaitely, counsel for the Appellant None for the respondent.

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

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment, we shall dispose of the appeal filed by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 16.05.2016, passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (North), Room NO. 2, Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Complaint Case no. CC-361/2011 titled as Kuldeep Singh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. inter-alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum.

2. While the Appellant was Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum.

3. The facts of the case as per the District Forum, record are as under:

“The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle/ HTV- Tata 2515 bearing No.HR-55-G-0178 which was insured by the O.P bearing policy No.361500/31/10/6300001341 valid for the period from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2011. The said vehicle was duly financed through Megma Fincrop Ltd.

It is alleged that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.18,198/- to the O.P towards the yearly premium and the total value of the sum assured of Rs.9,18,000/- as per the said policy. On 22.10.2010 the said truck alongwith original R.C. and one set of original key and other documents was stolen and the complainant immediately informed the Police on 100 number on the registered an FIR No. 755/2010 dated 17.11.2010 under section 379 IPC at P.S. MangolPuri, Distt. Outer, New Delhi. It is alleged that the O.P was intimated regarding the theft of the said truck within stipulated period. It is further alleged that the complainant applied for insurance claim to O.P and produced all the relevant documents which were asked by the O.P along with the copy of FIR, copy of untrace report dated 07.01.2011 and the complainant also handed over the one set of original keys of the said vehicle. It is alleged that surveyor Sh. Laxman Dass Arora was appointed by the O.P. On 17.08.2011 complainant was surprised to receive a letter from the O.P whereby O.P 0declined the claim of the complainant on the ground of violation of condition No.5 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further alleged that as per the instruction of said surveyor the complainant paid him a sum of Rs.10,000/- for preparation of the documents and completion of the necessary formalities as per his version. It is alleged that the said surveyor failed to provide survey report and receipt of the above said amount. It is further alleged that complainant made several complaints and sent reminders to the O.P but all in vain. Complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 16.09.2011 but to no avail. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.9,18,000/- and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.”

4. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 16.05.2016, whereby it held as follows:

“5. The main dispute in the complaint revolves around the issue as to whether the repudiat