Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being the owner of the vehicle  bearing Regd.No.OD-24-9727 has purchased the insurance policy  vide policy No.2315200684781500000  from the O.Ps on payment of due consideration  for the  period covering from 18.02.2014 to 17.02.2015. The complainant has alleged that on 18.04.2014, the vehicle while kept at Kosagumuda  in the District of Nabarangpur was stolen away by unknown culprits because the driver of the vehicle was taking rest nearby  place. The matter was reported before the police on the next day. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the insurer - O.Ps. After investigation the OPs submitted the report stating that the fact is true and submitted the charge sheet against the accused person. The O.Ps repudiated the claim stating that the policy condition has been violated because the driver has left the key in the stolen vehicle and not taken the safety of the vehicle. Challenging the repudiation as illegal and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complaint was filed.

 3.     The O.Ps admitted about the insurance of the vehicle and they have deputed the investigator who found that the driver of the vehicle has not taken care   of the vehicle. Since the complainant has not personally taken care of the vehicle and the driver left the key inside the vehicle, it was stolen. The policy condition with regard to the safeguard of the vehicle has been violated. Moreover, they have repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver has no valid driving license also.  So the claim was repudiated.

4.      After hearing of both counsels, the learned District Forum has passed the following the order:

“The O.ps are hereby directed to pay the insured value of the so called vehicle as provisions envisaged by I.R.D.A Government of India, on the alleged policy bearing No.2315200684781500000 to the complainant. Inter alia to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- ( ten thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5,000/- ( Five thousand) as cost of the litigation of the complainant.

The above awarded sum shall be paid within 30 days of dispatch of this order, failing which the total amount will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization.”

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order illegally by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. For that he submitted that the driver has no valid driving license to drive the vehicle for which it has violated the policy condition. He also submitted that the driver left the key in the vehicle at the time of occurrence. The term and condition with regard to safety of the vehicle has been violated. He also submitted that the complainant cannot leave the vehicle in here and there which violates the term and condition of the policy. Learned District Forum instead of considering all materials available on record, believing the story of the complainant and without any basis has passed the impugned order. So the impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

6.        Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the police paper is clear to show that the driver has no fault and the vehicle has kept near the rest place of the driver and the accused person admitted before the police that they committed theft. Moreover, the driver has valid driving license. There is no violation of policy condition. So he supports the impugned order.

7.        Considered the submissions. Perused the DFR and impugned order.

8.        It is admitted fact that the vehicle has been stolen away while the driver and the helper were taking rest. It is also not in dispute that during currency of the policy the theft of vehicle took place. It is also not in dispute that the police has started investigation immediately and the culprits were charge sheeted for offence u/s 379/34 IPC. The investigation of the police shows that police has been informed by the complainant immediately after occurrence. Therefore, the policy condition has been totally complied. So far safety of the vehicle is concerned, the police papers clearly shows that there is no fault from the side of the driver so far the key of the vehicle is concerned which was allegedly left in the vehicle. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the vehicle was kept in unsafe condition. When the charge sheet U/S 379/34 IPC was framed, the case of theft is true, the violation of policy condition has not been proved by the O.Ps.

9.        In view of the aforesaid discussion, we agree with the finding of the learned district Forum. There is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. It appears that the vehicle has been purchased two months before the theft  for Rs.5,29,175/-. So, we modify the impugned order  by directing  the O.Ps to pay the Rs.5,00,000/- lacks to the complainant with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- within a period of 45 days  from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum  from the date of the impugned order till the payment is made.

10.      The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.