1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 454 of 2017 in which order dated 08.08.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janakpuri, New Delhi (West) (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 452 of 2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 08.05.2018 of the State Commission.

2.         While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Respondent before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission in FA/454/2017 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No. 452/15.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 27.08.2018. Parties filed Written Arguments on 31.01.2024 (Petitioner) and 09.02.2024 (Respondent) respectively. 

4.         Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

(i)        The Complainant/Appellant purchased a brand new car in December 2012 and subsequently an insurance policy from the Petitioner/Opposite Party for a period from 10.11.2013 to 09.11.2014 for assured sum of Rs.9,73,000/- on payment of Rs.14,136/- as premium. On 10.10.2014, vehicle was stolen from his showroom/shop i.e. RU-376, Nayyar Electronic World at RU Block, Pitampura, New Delhi. He immediately lodged an FIR in this regard on the same date and also informed the insured company in writing within time.

(ii)       Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor i.e. Suraksha Enterprises to investigate the theft. During the course of investigation, Complainant supplied most of the required information and documents to the Surveyor and Insurance Company. During scrutiny of the papers, it revealed that the Complainant failed to provide second original key of the car and when explanation was sought, he told that the first original key was lost on 24.08.2014 in a marriage function and intimation was given to Maurya Enclave Police Station on the same day. Through RTI, it was found that neither any such complaint was received nor registered on 24.08.2014 in the Police Station.

(iii) It is the case of the Insurance Company that the Complainant misrepresented and submitted a false and frivolous document dated 24.08.2014 regarding intimation of loss of key of the car to the police and has played fraud upon the Opposite Party and the Forum. The Complainant was negligent in taking precaution to safeguard the vehicle and violated Condition No. 1 and 4 of the Insurance Policy. As he did not care to change the lock of the car when the first original key was stolen on 24.08.2014.

(iv)      Due to Complainant’s negligence, the Opposite Party Insurance Company repudiated the claim in May 2015 on the false and flimsy ground. Hence, the complaint was filed.

5.         Vide Order dated 08.08.2017, in the CC no. 452 of 2015 the District Commission, finding no merit in the complaint, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 08.08.2017 of District Commission, Complainant appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 08.05.2018 in FA No. 454 of 2017 allowed the appeal and passed the following order:

“20. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta (supra) that the orders passed by the District Fora cannot be sustained since the only ground taken by the insurance company to repudiate the claim, namely, loss of the second key of the car, since lost, stands demolished by the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and consequently allow the complaint filed before the District Fora and direct the insurance company to settle the claim and pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.9,73,000/- with simple interest @8% within a period of two months. Having ordered this we do not express any opinion on the other points raised by either side. No order as to cost. 

6.         Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 08.05.2018 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:

1. State Commission erred in not observing the most important contention raised by the Petitioner before the State Commission as well as before the District Forum i.e. Fraud played by the Respondent on the Court as well as on the Petitioner. The Petitioner had duly established the fact that the Respondent had made a forged and fabricated Intimation Letter dated 24.08.2014 to Police allegedly intimating the loss of One set of Original Key of the insured vehicle. The concerned Police had confirmed in writing that the Respondent had not given any such intimation to them. Despite the said contention being duly discussed by District Forum in its order and vehemently argued by the Petitioner before the State Commission as well, the impugned order is absolutely silent on this most important contention. The impugned order is not tenable on this sole ground itself.

2. The State Commission observed in para 19 of the impugned order that the Petitioner had raised the contention that the Respondent was expected to change the lock of the insured car after losing the Second Key. However, arbitrarily considered this contention irrelevant by giving perverse finding that the insured vehicle had been stolen after almost 14 months from the date of the loss of the Original Second Key.

3. The State Commission failed to appreciate that no intimation to police regarding loss of Original key of the insured vehicle in a marriage function and failure to change the Lock of the insured vehicle despite losing the Original Key of the insured vehicle in a public place is gross negligence on the part of the Respondent and blatant violation of the Condition No. 4 (Reasonable Care Clause) of the Insurance Policy.

4. The State Commission failed to consider that no evidence has been led by the Complainant in support of the fact that the key was lost in any marriage function. The only proof submitted by the Complainant is the alleged letter of intimation to police however the said letter was categorically turned down by the District Forum as a fake document. However, the State Commission has refrained from giving any observation on the said contention vehemently raised by the Petitioner.

7.         Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

            7.1       In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the petitioner contended that the insured vehicle had been stolen after almost 14 months from the date of the loss of the Original Second Key. Further, the State Commission observed that the Original Second Key was lost on 24.08.2014 and the car was stolen on 10.10.2015 which is an absolutely factually incorrect date. The insured car was admittedly stolen on 10.10.2014 which is almost after one month sixteen days and not after 14 months as observed by the State Commission. Regarding loss of original key of the insured vehicle in marriage function, no intimation was given to police and failure to change the lock of the insured vehicle despite losing the original key in a public place is gross negligence on the part of the respondent and violation of Condition No. 1 and 4. In view of the above, Petitioner rightly repudiated the claim of the Respondent through self-explanatory Repudiation Letter dated 14.05.2015. In support of his contentions, Petitioner relied upon the following judgements:

(i)        Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhardnidhar Sharma in RP No. 985/2015

(ii)       M/s BTM Industries Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in RP No. 86/2010

(iii)     Dubey Travels Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 197

(iv)      Gas Ghar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2006) CPJ377 (NC)

            7.2       On the other hand Respondent contended that the Petitioner assured to release the claim amount of Rs.9,73,000/- as early as possible against his claim No. C230014075386. But Respondent was shocked to know that the petitioner repudiated the claim in May, 2015. Further, respondent submitted in its rejoinder that the complaint regarding the loss of original key to the police station at Maurya Enclave and received the stamped copy of the receipt from Police. However, Respondent gave the information within the time but the Police official did not record in their register or not allotted DD entry number to the Respondent. Respondent was not aware of the terms and conditions, specifically the Conditions No. 1 and 4 on the basis of which the claim of the Respondent was rejected as he was never supplied the same and as such the same is not binding upon the respondent. Respondent was supplied with only one single paper of the policy. Further, Respondent contended that the petitioner company relying upon the RTI Report submitted by Investigator to the Police Station, with regard to submission of the complaint by the respondent for the loss of the original key of the said car and the answering of the Police Station that no such complaint was received by them, whereas in fact the respondent submitted the complaint with the SHO, Police Station Maurya Enclave Police Station, Pitampura, New Delhi on 24.08.2014.

8.         We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  The claim was repudiated by the Petitioner Insurance Company vide letter dated 14.05.2015, mainly, on the ground of violation of policy condition no.1 and 4 i.e. misrepresentation / concealment of facts on the part of the respondent herein in not disclosing the correct information and also for not taking steps to safeguard the vehicle if the original key was lost.  The relevant extract of the repudiation letter is reproduced below:

“During the course of the investigation all the necessary documents as explained to you were submitted by your goodself to us.  During the scrutiny of the documents it was observed that you had failed to provide us the second original key and had provided an Intimation Letter Dated: 24^th August 2014 addressed to The SHO, P.S. Maurya Enclave was provided by you stating that the original key had been lost somewhere in Pitampura during a marriage function.

In this regard a RTI was applied with Delhi Police to confirm the genuineness of the Intimation Letter provided by you as the same was not having any receiving of the concerned Police Station and the reply received from Delhi Police states that there was no complaint received at Police Station Maurya Enclave in regards to lost key.

It is misrepresentation / concealment of facts on your part for not disclosing the correct information to us and also there was no steps taken to safeguard the vehicle if the original key was lost, which is violation of Policy condition no. 1 and 4.

Condition1.  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.

Condition 4.  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 or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured.  In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall  not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle 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.”

9.         While the insurance company contends that there was no intimation to the police regarding loss of the original key of the insured vehicle as the reply received by the investigator appointed by the Insurance Company from the concerned Police Station show that respondent had not given any such intimation to the police.  On the other hand, the respondent has submitted that he informed the police on 24.08.2014 about the loss of the duplicate key in a marriage function. We have seen the said letter dated 24.08.2014 addressed by the respondent herein to the SHO of Maurya Enclave Police Station, Pitampura which also bears the stamp of Police Station Maurya Enclave, Delhi.  We do not find any reason to disbelieve the correctness of this intimation which bears the stamp of the Police Station.  As the case pertain to the loss of duplicate key of the car, which police generally does not treat as a serious case and does not register the DDR or FIR, otherwise they have to investigate the case and complete various formalities with regard to its closure etc., hence, it is quite possible that this letter was treated as a mere intimation and no DDR / FIR was registered by the police in pursuance to this letter.  The reply received by the investigator from the concerned Police Station show that no daily diary number has been lodged regarding the loss  of the duplicate key, hence both the information appears to be reconcilable and reply under RTI from the Police Station does not lead to a conclusion that letter dated 24.08.2014 is a forged / fabricated done.  We are in agreement with the submission of the Petitioner – Insurance Company with respect to the mistake committed by the State Commission in para 19 of its order wherein it took the date of loss of second key on 24.08.2014 and date of theft of car as 10.10.2015 instead of 10.10.2014 and then stated that theft happened after a lapse of almost 14 months. Seems the State Commission by mistake took the year of theft as 2015 instead of 2014 and then accordingly calculated the gap period as 14 months.  To this extent, we accept the contention of the Petitioner – Insurance Company that order of the State Commission in para 19 suffers from mistake.  However, we are looking into the entire facts in its entirety on merits. When somebody loses one key of his car, sometimes keeping in view the cost of obtaining original duplicate key from the manufacturer one decides not to go for replacement of the lost key.  In the present case, there appears to be no direct relation with theft of the car and loss of key, notwithstanding that theft of the car happened within about 1 ½ months of loss of one key of the car. If someone loses one key of the car out of the two obtained at the time of purchase, the only option the person has to safeguard his car from being stolen is to get the entire locking system replaced, which does not appear to be feasible and can be a costly affair for such person. In such a situation, normally a person who has lost one key of the car, at the most, he can inform the police and continue to use the car with the second key. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are not convinced with the argument of the Petitioner – Insurance Company that there was any negligence on the part of the respondent to safeguard the vehicle and hence, there was no violation of condition no.4 of the policy as respondent has taken all reasonable steps in terms of informing the police about the loss of the vehicle.  There is no misrepresentation / concealment of facts on the part of the respondent and hence, there is no violation of condition no.1 of the policy.  Accordingly, repudiation of the claim by the insurance company vide letter dated 14.05.2015 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.  Subject to our  disagreement with the findings of the State Commission in certain paras, especially para no.19 of its order dated 08.05.2018, in view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the final decision of the State Commission. Hence, in view of the foregoing, the Complaint is allowed and Petitioner – Insurance Company is directed to settle the claim and pay the complainant the claim  amount of Rs.9,73,000/- with simple interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f date of complaint within two months from the date of this order failing which, amount payable at the end of two months will carry interest @ 10% p.a. w.e.f. expiry of two months of the date of this order till the date of actual payment.

10.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.