This appeal has been filed by the appellant Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 15.12.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in CC No.89/2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complaint Sachin Yadav is owner of HIWA Dumper bearing Regd. No.HR-55-L-7212, which he purchased from Pasco Showroom, Chandigarh on 30.09.2010 for Rs.20,60,000/- by getting it financed from Tata Motors Finance Ltd. The vehicle was insured by him with the opposite party vide policy No.102015/31/11/006199 for the period 18.10.2010 to 17.10.2011 for a sum assured of Rs.21,50,000/-. The complainant alleged that on the intervening night of 23/24 March, 2011 some unknown person had stolen it from Bilaspur Chowk, P.S. Bilaspur, Gurgaon and he lodged FIR No.58 dated 24.03.2011 under Section 379 IPC at about 3.20 hours. The police, however failed to trace out the stolen vehicle and sent untraced report dated 02.06.2011. The complainant also informed the opposite party in this regard and after completing the necessary formalities he asked to settle the dispute. The vehicle was financed by the Tata Motors and it was the only source of his livelihood of which he had to clear the remaining installments. However, sufficient time expired but the opposite party failed to settle the claim. Aggrieved against this, the complainant alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, filed the complaint on 03.09.2014. In reply the opposite party pleaded that complainant had violated condition no.5 of the policy, as he failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle and thus, the complaint was not maintainable nor was he entitled to any claim. However, it is admitted that the vehicle in dispute was having insured value of Rs.21,50,000/-. In addition opposite party denied the claim of the complainant, as there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy regarding which the complainant was informed vide letter dated 15.12.2011. On this basis the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. The complainant filed complaint bearing No.89 of 2014 before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the following order on 15.12.2016:- “Consequently we are fully satisfied with the genuineness of the claim of the complainant and its repudiation by the insurance company clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay the insured value of the vehicle along with 9% p.a. thereon from the date of repudiation of the claim and Rs.21,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant with Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.” 4. Hence the present appeal by appellant/opposite party. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the key was left by the driver in the ignition socket inside the vehicle, which facilitated the theft of the vehicle. Every person cannot drive the dumper and therefore, the thieves may have come with an idea to steal the dumper as if they would be knowing that the key will remain inside the vehicle, however, the police have filed the final report. The investigator has not been able to take statement of the driver though the investigator has talked to the driver on phone and it has been stated by the driver that ignition key was left inside the vehicle. Learned counsel further stated that vehicle was unattended as observed by the surveyor as follows:- “FINDINGS: Insured confirmed that one key had been lost in his house in January 2011 which he not found till date which on tracing would be directly submitted to the insurance company at the time of claim settlement. No FIR was made till investigation for lost of key. Insured Driver parked the vehicle across the road and left the vehicle unattended without taking any security measures about the vehicle.He has neither informed to any of the other driver/cleaner of other vehicles in that side.It is a GROSS NEGLIGENCE from insured driver’s part.”
6. The Insurance Company was also informed with a delay of 9 days for which no explanation has been submitted by the complainant though the FIR was lodged in time. Clearly, the Insurance Company has lost the opportunity to search for the vehicle and to assist the police in investigation. 7. The State Commission has not given any importance to such important issues. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant has not been able to provide two keys of the vehicle. It has been stated by the complainant that the complainant had already lost one key just after purchase of the vehicle though no FIR has been lodged in this regard. Thus, this assertion of the complainant is only a pretext to show that the key was not left inside the vehicle. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the State Commission has considered all the objections raised by the Insurance Company and has allowed the claim. The issue of key has been unnecessarily raised just to deny the genuine claim of the complainant. One key was already lost by the complainant and the other key was available. However, the Insurance Company agreed that other key be handed over at the time of finalisation of the claim, but the claim has been repudiated. This clearly means that the ignition key was not left within the dumper. Other issues have already been decided by the State Commission. Insurance Company should not have raised those issues again. 9. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. So far as the question of key is concerned, the FIR is silent on this issue though the investigator has given a finding that the ignition key was left inside the vehicle. The circumstantial evidence also suggests the same because the complainant has not been able to provide both the keys to the Insurance Company. Even the assertion made by the complainant that one key has been lost is not supported by any documentary evidence like FIR etc. Otherwise also, the driver has not taken due care and precaution for safeguarding the vehicle as he parked the vehicle in a place where nobody was guarding the vehicle. No explanation has been given by the complainant for not giving information to the Insurance Company immediately, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, the two conditions of the policy are clearly violated in the present case. The first is that the intimation of theft was given to the Insurance Company with a delay of 9 days which prevented the Insurance Company to search the vehicle and to assist the police in its investigation. The second violation is in respect of the fact that due care and precaution was not taken for safeguarding the vehicle by the driver as the keys were left inside the vehicle and the vehicle was parked at a distant place without any watch and ward. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) has observed that the claim can be allowed on non-standard basis upto 75% of the admissible claim in case of violation of certain conditions of the policy. 10. Thus, two important conditions have been violated by the complainant and therefore, we are of the view that Insurance claim should be settled at @ 60% of the IDV of the vehicle in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Based on the above discussion, First Appeal No.561 of 2017 is partly allowed and the appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.12,90,000/- [60% of IDV of Rs.21,50,000/-] along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 05.09.2014 | 
