ORDER :

1. The petitioner made an insurance claim, in terms of the policy of insurance taken from the respondent, on account of the alleged theft of his insured truck. His claim was repudiated by the respondent essentially on two grounds pertaining to the violation of the terms of policy: one, that there was an abnormal delay of eight days in lodging the FIR and of sixteen days in informing the insurance company about the alleged theft; and second, that the vehicle was left unattended on a Highway with ignition keys and thereby, the petitioner or his employees failed to take requisite steps to protect the insured truck from any loss or damage.

2. The reasons as stated in the repudiation letter could be usefully reproduced as under: -

“1) The keys of the vehicle were left with the vehicle. It is mentioned in the notarised statement given by you that the vehicle was stolen with the ignition key. This is a gross negligent act of leaving key with the vehicle which led to the incidence of the insured asset being stolen. Sufficient care was not taken which a prudent man ought to have taken. This is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy issued to you which states-The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage.

2) The date of loss as informed by you is 25th March 2010 and the notice/intimation to the police is dated 2nd April 2010. Condition 1 of the Motor Insurance policy wordings is as follows:-Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution Inquest or Fatal Inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.

There has been a delay in intimation of 8 days delay in intimating the police whereas; the aforementioned conditions speaks of immediate notice to the police authorities.”

3. On the complaint made by the petitioner, the District Forum, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have concurrently returned the findings against the petitioner. Of course, the State Commission did not find the ground of leaving the ignition keys in the vehicle to be a valid reason for repudiating the claim but endorsed the other ground that there had been unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and informing the insurer about the alleged theft.

4. The National Commission, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner has, inter alia, observed as under:

“5. We do not find merit in the above contention. Perusal of the order of the District Form would show that District Forum has categorically reported that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in case of theft, the insured was supposed to give immediate notice in writing to the insurance company. Admittedly, no intimation of theft in writing was given to the insurance company. Therefore, the concurrent findings of the Fora below to the effect that the petitioner has violated the aforesaid condition of the insurance contract cannot be faulted. Further, perusal of the record would show that the claim of the petitioner was also repudiated on the ground that the petitioner or his employees had failed to take reasonable care to protect the insured truck from any loss or damage. This conclusion was drawn on the basis of the fact that the driver and