Heard counsel for the petitioner who submitted before us that the entire episode and the incident reported by the complainant is suspicious in nature and a false claim has been put up as reported by  surveyor.  It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that there was delay of 9 months in reporting the matter to the insurance company and that too after insurance policy had expired.  Counsel for the petitioner also draws our attention to the second part of Condition No.4 which specifies that in case of breakdown or accident of the vehicle, if the vehicle is left unattended without taking proper precautions, the claim shall not be payable.  Condition No.4 reads 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 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 entire at the insured’s own risk.”

          The State Commission, after considering the circumstances under which the car in question had broken down at night; the fact that the complainant had gone in search of mechanic from the locality nearby; the fact that the mechanic was not available and when complainant came back next morning the car was missing, has held that the complainant had taken all necessary precautions by locking the vehicle and there was no violation of second part of Condition No.4.  In this set of facts, we are in complete agreement with the findings of the State Commission.  It is pertinent to note that immediately on the day, the car was found to be missing, the matter was reported to the Police and the Police did not suspect any foul play.  After investigation, the matter was reported ‘Undetected”. The insurance company had also tried to deny the claim of the complainant on the ground that the value of the car was not more than Rs.75,000/-.  This plea of the insurance company can obviously not be accepted in the light of the judgment in the case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 279.  In that case, it has been held that the insurance company is bound to pay the value put on the vehicle while issuing the policy i.e. IDV of the vehicle which in the case under consideration was Rs.2 lakhs. 

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 5.11.2009 of this Commission in Kiran Rajeev Sharma Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. in RP No.3729 of 2009.  The same would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since in the said case the driver of the vehicle had left the keys in the car while going for breakfast and in the meantime, car had been stolen.

In view of the above, we find that the order of the State Commission is just, reasonable and equitable in the facts and circumstances and does not call for interference in the exercise of revisional powers. The revision is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.