Prem Narain ORDER
Dr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member)
1. This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 07.06.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 488/2016, by which the complaint filed by the appellant against the rejection of his claim for the theft of insured vehicle on the ground that the ignition keys were left inside the vehicle, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant purchased a goods truck, bearing registration No. HR-55 Q-6002 for a total price of 21,09,795.62 on 31.05.2012, by taking loan from the HDFC Bank. The said vehicle was insured with the OP Insurance Company for the period 28.05.2012 to 27.05.2013 for an insured declared value (IDV) of 20 lakh. On the date of the incident, i.e., 09.07.2012, the driver of the complainant company, Manish Kumar, was taking the truck from Gokulpuri to Jhajjar, Haryana, when he parked the same at roadside at about 1:30 AM to attend the call of nature. While doing so, he saw a Mahindra Jeep stopping in front of the aforesaid truck, from which some unknown persons came out, boarded the truck and took it away. On the same day, an FIR No. 152/2012 was registered at PS Timarpur at 8:10 AM. As per the investigation done by the Police, the names of the persons responsible for the theft of the truck were revealed. It was stated, however, that the truck could not be recovered as the same had been sold by them. The untraced report given by the Police was filed in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. A claim under the insurance policy was filed with the OP Insurance Company, but the same was repudiated vide their letter dated 30.10.2015, stating that the keys of the vehicle were left in the ignition socket at the time of the incident and hence, the theft was facilitated due to negligence of the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the State Commission, seeking directions to the OPs to pay them the insured sum of 20 lakh alongwith interest @18% p.a. and compensation of 10 lakh for loss of business, 5 lakh for mental harassment and 1 lakh for cost of litigation.
3. The State Commission dismissed the complaint at the stage of admission itself, saying that law was well-settled that if the keys were left in the vehicle in such kind of incident, with ignition on, the insurance company was not liable to pay the claim. The State Commission placed reliance on an earlier order passed by this Commission in, " IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjay Bhagwar Malwade, [MANU/CF/0779/2015 : IV (2015) CPJ 188] ". Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainant/appellant is before this Commission by way of the present First Appeal.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant was heard in detail. Regarding the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal, the Ld. Counsel stated that the appellant was under a wrong impression that the period of limitation for filing the appeal was 90 days and not 30 days. Moreover, the father of the partner of the complainant firm, Mahavir Prasad Gupta, was seriously ill and hence, unable to attend office for 20 - 25 days.
5. The Ld. Counsel has further drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak" [MANU/CF/0048/2006 : II (2006) CPJ 144 NC], saying that in that case, the vehicle being driven was carrying more passengers than permitted. However, 75% of the claim on non-standard basis was allowed. The Ld. Counsel further stated that the version of the OP Insurance Company that the keys were left inside the ignition, was n........