JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant/petitioner owned a Toyota Innova vehicle which he had got insured with the respondent for the period from 15.04.2008 to 14.04.2009. On 28.03.2009, during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle was taken by a friend of the complainant namely Ramesh Kumar to Dwarka. When Ramesh Kumar was coming from Dwarka to his Village and reached Sector-20 near Delhi Jal Board Pump, the vehicle was parked by him on the roadside, in order to ease himself at a place near the vehicle. The key of the vehicle had been left by him in the ignition. When he was easing himself near the vehicle, two boys came out in a Santro car and drove away with the insured vehicle. An alarm was raised by the friend of the complainant and PCR was called. The vehicle however could not be recovered. A claim for reimbursement in terms of the insurance policy was lodged by the complainant/petitioner. The claim however, was repudiated on the ground that having left the key of the car in the ignition, the driver of the vehicle had failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the insured vehicle from possible loss, thereby violating condition No.4 of the insurance policy. 2. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant/petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint. The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the ground on which the claim had repudiated. 3. The District Forum having allowed the Consumer Complaint, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 23.03.2018, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the Consumer Complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission. 4. This is not in dispute that the key of the vehicle had been left by the friend of the complainant in the ignition of the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the friend of the complainant was easing himself at a place close to the vehicle and the vehicle was very much visible to him at the place where he was easing himself. While the friend of the complainant was easing himself, two boys came out of a Santro car and drove away the insured vehicle, taking advantage of the key which the friend of the complainant had left in the ignition. No reasonable person seeking to ease himself, at a place close to the vehicle, from where he can watch the vehicle even while easing himself, would ever anticipate that someone would take away the vehicle, even after seeing him easing himself at a place close to the vehicle. The probability of such a daredevil act is rather remote, though not ruled out. If a person parks a vehicle, leaves the keys in the ignition and then goes away from the vehicle to a place where he is not able to keep a watch on the vehicle, it can be safely said that the person driving the vehicle has failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from a possible loss on account of someone taking away the vehicle using the key left in the ignition. But, the position would be entirely different when the person driving the vehicle is easing himself in the close vicinity of the vehicle parked on the road side and is keeping an eye on the vehicle even while easing himself. The fact that the friend of the complainant was keeping a vigil on the vehicle even while easing himself, is evident from his raising an alarm the moment he saw two boys entering the vehicle and speeding away using the key left in the ignition. 5. In Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar, RP No.157 of 2016 decided on 20.07.2016, this Commission inter-alia observed and held as under: "5. ........If the driver of the vehicle leaves the key in the ignition and also does not lock the door of the vehicle while going to a place from where the vehicle would not be visible to him, such an act in my opinion, amounts to a failure to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. The driver knew that if he left the key in the ignition and the door unlocked, anybody could commit theft of the vehicle taking advantage of his being away from the vehicle. Therefore, it would be difficult to dispute the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. 6. In the present case, though the friend of the complainant had left the keys in the ignition, he had not gone to a place from where the vehicle would not be visible. Therefore, he could not have anticipated that someone could commit theft of the vehicle even when he is easing himself in the close vicinity of the vehicle. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the friend of the complainant had not failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle against possible theft. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained and same is set aside. The order passed by the District Forum is consequently restored. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. The complainant however, shall complete all the formalities prescribed by the insurer before the claim is paid to him. | 
