JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant / respondent owned truck bearing Registration No. HR-39-A-9613 which he got insured with the petitioner company for the period from 02.02.2013 to 01.2.2014. The truck was stolen from in front of a shop in Auto Market Hisar where the driver had left it for repair on the next day. The theft took place in the night intervening 10th & 11th October, 2013. An FIR was lodged with the concerned police station and intimation to the insurer was given. The claim however, was repudiated vide letter dated 04.4.2014 which, to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “The Vehicle was left unlocked and the same got stolen while its window glass of cabin door was broken, which did not get replaced till the date of incident. This has aided the miscreants in their act of stealing the vehicle. Leaving the vehicle unattended while its window glass of cabin door was in broken condition is a gross negligence and a failure to take reasonable care to prevent and protect the vehicle from loss or damage. Hence, there is a violation of Condition No.5 of the Policy which provides as under: “The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”. Attention is hereby drawn towards condition No.8 of the Policy: “ The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of this Policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this policy”. In view of the above, we regret to inform you that the captioned claim is not tenable under the policy and we are filing the papers as “No-Claim”. 2. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground in which the claim had been repudiated. 3. The District Forum having allowed the complaint vide its order dated 01.9.2016 and having directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.4,78,414.93 to respondent No.2 Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., which had financed the aforesaid vehicle and balance amount of Rs.5,21,586/- to the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 01.9.2016, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the State Commission would show that the FIR with the police was lodged and the insurer was intimated of the theft on the same day on which it was detected. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner had committed breach of Condition No.5 of the policy. 5. A perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant Krishan Kumar would show that he reached the workshop of one Jaipal at about 4.30 p.m. for repairing the gear of the vehicle. He was informed by the mechanic that since the evening had already set in, he would start the repair work in the morning. The vehicle was accordingly parked in front of the workshop. The conductor side glass of the truck being in broken condition, he locked the conductor side of the door from inside, came out through the driver side, locked the truck from the driver side using the key of the vehicle and left for his home. An additional key of the vehicle was available in the cabin of the vehicle itself for emergency use. When he reached in the morning, the vehicle was found stolen. It would thus be seen that this not the case of the driver leaving the key of the vehicle in its ignition and then leaving the vehicle unlocked while going away from the vehicle. The window glass of the conductor side of the vehicle being broken, the complainant could not have done anything about it. Since the gear of the vehicle was required to be repaired and the mechanic was inclined to start the repair only next day in the morning, he had no option but to park the vehicle in front of the workshop. Since the key of the vehicle was being taken by the complainant with him, after locking the same form outside, he could not have suspected that someone would enter the vehicle by opening the conductor side door and he would also look for the second key of the vehicle inside the cabin which obviously means the glovebox of the vehicle. Had the key been left in ignition while leaving the truck in the night, or would have otherwise been visible from outside, it could have been said that the complainant had failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. May be a more intelligent and smart truck owner, considering the fact that the conductor side glass of the cabin was in a broken condition would have taken the second key also with him while going to his home and would again have come in the morning with the key of the vehicle in order to enable the mechanic to start the vehicle, but such extreme care and caution is not expected from every owner of the vehicle, particularly if he happens to be a truck driver. The complainant, in my view, cannot be said to have failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss only because he had left the second key of the vehicle inside the glovebox. Ordinarily, a person intending to commit theft of a vehicle will not enter the vehicle even if the side glass is broken unless the key of the vehicle is available with him or visible to him or he knows that one key of the vehicle has been kept in the glovebox. Since, there is no evidence of the second key kept in the cabin of the vehicle being visible from the outside the truck, it would be difficult to say that the complainant must necessarily have taken that key with him, while leaving for his house. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove I find no good ground to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the fora below. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. | 
