Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The unfolded story of the   case of  the complainant, is that  the complainant being owner  of the vehicle bearing Regd.No.OR-02-AQ-0297 had purchased the policy for the vehicle for the period from 19.09.2007 to 18.09.2008. The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.2,45,000/-. It is alleged inter-alia that on 27.02.2008  the driver of the vehicle while  going from Rasulgarh  to Balugaon, two persons  went with the vehicle  near Pitapalli square, they stopped  at a Dhaba for food.  It is alleged that  two persons requested  the  driver   for taking  food,  at the time of consuming food they offered  cold drinks  to the driver  who after taking same became unconscious. During   unconsciousness of the driver, the vehicle was stolen away. Thereafter the FIR was lodged. The matter  was also informed to the insurer. The insurer repudiated the claim  on the finding  that no  pre-caution was taken by the complainant  for the safety of the vehicle  and as such  they have   repudiated the claim. Challenging such repudiation, the complaint was filed.

4.            The  OP    filed written version stating that  the complaint is not maintainable because the case is barred by limitation. It is specifically  mentioned that  the condition no.5   of the policy has been violated because  the complainant has not  taken security for  the safety of the vehicle. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

5.             After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

         “In the result, the complaint is hereby dismissed on contest against the Ops being devoid of merit. No cost.”

6.            Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version  with proper perspectives. According to him there is clear evidence  for hiring of the vehicle by two unknown persons  and the driver  did misdeed  by taking  the spurious drinks. However, the vehicle has not been traced out. There is negligence on the part of the complainant for such  conduct of the driver. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

 7.                Learned counsel for the respondent  submitted that he being the complainant had challenged the order because he has taken all precautions for safety of the vehicle. When the driver has allowed  to go two person to go  in  good faith  and  subsequently  they gave some  intoxicated   drink to the driver, the repudiation of the claim on the ground for violation of the policy condition no.5  is thoroughly misconceived. According to him  driver has worked  in good faith and learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in this case. So, he supports the impugned order.

8.                      Considered the submission  of learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.       

9.                   It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the vehicle has been stolen away and FIR has been lodged immediately after the incident. Not only this   but also   the materials on record  showed that  the driver  who was in-charge of the vehicle  allowed  two persons who hired the vehicle to travel. It is only fault of the driver  to have  allowed two persons to enter into the vehicle.  But for  that  no  calpability can  be attached with the complainant. Thus, we are of the view that  the complainant has taken sufficient precaution to the safety of   the vehicle. As  such the policy condition no.5 has not been violated by the complainant.  It  appears that the Ops have repudiated the claim  for violation of policy condition no.5  but we have come to the conclusion that the repudiation is totally baseless. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP to the complainant.

10.             The OP has not assessed the loss. However, the vehicle has run for one year from the date of purchase and the IDV is Rs.2,45,000/-. In our opinion, the cost of the vehicle  minus depreciation cost should be available to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant  is entitled to get Rs.2,25,000/- from the respondent as compensation against the vehicle.

11.              Therefore, the appeal is allowed and consequently   complaint  is allowed with direction to the OP to pay Rs.2,25,000/-  towards compensation  within a period of 45 days from today failing which it will carry interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of impugned order till date of payment.  No cost.

                   Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                     DFR be sent back forthwith.