ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President): This is an appeal by the insurance company against the order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 136/2007, whereby the complainant was held entitled to insured sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest, by way of indemnification of the loss occasioned due to theft of complainant’s insured Tata Indica car No. UA07K/4603 at about 12:00 in the night of 20.08.2006 from the highway in the vicinity of Modi Nagar Town, 1 km. away from a highway filling station. According to the complainant, his driver Sh. Rupesh Kumar was all alone in the car on way to Delhi from Dehradun for some work assigned by the complainant. At the spot of the incident, the driver suddenly got his stomach upset and after parking the car and leaving the ignition key inside, besides the documents of the vehicle, went to ease himself at a short distance from that place. When the driver returned after about 15 minutes, the car was found missing. 2. It was also the case of the complainant that the police did not co-operate in the matter of registration of FIR, which got to be lodged belatedly on 23.08.2006 at P.S. Niwari, District Ghaziabad. A case under Section 379 IPC was registered, but after investigation, final report was submitted by the police. Complainant gave intimation of the incident to the insurance company, which appointed an investigator; who found the story of the incident of theft as highly doubtful, mentioning in the report that there was great negligence on the part of the driver in leaving the vehicle unlocked with key and papers inside and further that the information to the police about the theft was given belatedly on 23.08.2006 and wherein the information regarding loss of papers was not given. The insurance company repudiated the theft claim of the vehicle vide communication dated 19.06.2007 by making the observation as under: “(a) That you left the insured vehicle unattended, unlocked with ignition keys on and without taking proper precaution to prevent the theft of the vehicle, thus violated condition No. 4 of the policy. The insurance company repudiated the theft claim of the vehicle vide communication dated 19.06.2007 by making the observation as under: “(a) That you left the insured vehicle unattended, unlocked with ignition keys on and without taking proper precaution to prevent the theft of the vehicle, thus violated condition No. 4 of the policy. (b) Extraordinary delay of two and a half days was taken by you in informing the police and the insurance company was informed after five days of the theft of the vehicle, which has prejudiced our right of immediate investigation – thus violated condition No. 1 of the policy.” 3. The above stand was also taken before the District Forum by the insurance company, which however, on its appreciation of the facts of the case, accepted the complainant’s version, by observing that since the driver of the vehicle became sick suddenly and went to ease himself and on account of such situation, it would not be safe to accept that the vehicle had been left unattended and without taking proper precaution, in contravention of condition No. 4 of the policy. It was also observed that the police usually avoid prompt registration of the FIR of incident of theft and since the FIR in the case, was got to be lodged after the intervention of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun and since initially efforts were made to search and locate the stolen vehicle, the delay was caused in informing the incident to the insurance company and under these circumstances, the question of violation of condition No. 1 of the policy does not arise. With these observations, the claim of the complainant was found tenable and the complaint was allowed per impugned order, as stated above. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered their submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. With these observations, the claim of the complainant was found tenable and the complaint was allowed per impugned order, as stated above. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered their submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. Learned counsel for the insurance company assailed the propriety and legality of the findings of the learned District Forum, by submitting that the District Forum failed to take into consideration the glaring aspect of the case that the story of theft of the vehicle, as has been set up, clearly appear to be concocted one and for that reason, delay was caused in informing the alleged loss of vehicle to the insurance company and that the interest of the insurer was, thus, found to have not been protected, in contravention of the conditions of the policy of insurance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned order and urged that appreciation of the facts and the evidence made by the learned District Forum, being just and reasonable, its findings do not warrant interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by the State Commission. 5. The reported decisions pressed into service in support of the appellant’s case are as follows: (i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar; IV (2005) CPJ 602 (ii) Bajaj allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Agrawal; III (2006) CPJ 180 (iii) M.C. Chachapan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another; I (2006) CPJ 531 (iv) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shivali Cement Pvt. Ltd.; III (1999) CPJ 264. 6. Having considered the respective submissions in the light of the material on record and the peculiar facts of the case, we may state at the outset that the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant have force and the theft claim having been repudiated after due deliberation and consideration of the facts and circumstance of the case, the District Forum was not at all legally justified to draw an inference that the insurance company made deficiency in service in repudiating the claim. The complaint, therefore, should not have been allowed, so as to award compensation to the complainant. 7. The complaint, therefore, should not have been allowed, so as to award compensation to the complainant. 7. The reasons for the aforesaid inference are that the bare facts as regards the alleged theft of the vehicle, as have been set up by the complainant, clearly indicate that the story of the theft does not at all appear convincing and rather the same appear to be concocted one. As per the allegations of the complaint, the vehicle was being driven from Dehradun to Delhi by the driver all alone on 20.08.2006 for some work, which has not been specified at any stage by the complainant. Further, the driver was stated to have his stomach upset suddenly near the filling station in the vicinity of the town of Modi Nagar and then decided to have the vehicle parked at that place in the dark hours of the mid-night. When the filling station was about 1 km. from that place, it appear quite improbable that the driver would decide to park the vehicle on the road side away from the filling station and went away to ease himself, leaving the ignition key inside the vehicle along with the documents of the same in it. The way, the story has been set up, would in no case, appeal to any person of a reasonably prudent mind and, therefore, the insurance company’s investigator Sh. Har Krishan vide his report dated 23.08.2006, rightly found the story highly doubtful and suspicious after making queries from the people of the vicinity, including the owner and attendants of the nearby filling station and nearby attendant of a nursery, not far away from the place of the alleged incident of theft. The reason being that on the happening of such an event of theft, the driver would have in all probability, first of all visited the people of these places to make query as to whether they have seen someone else driving away and to which direction the vehicle in question and then to make an attempt to bring that information also to the nearby police outpost or in any case police station at the earliest. Contrary to such an expected conduct from a professional driver, who must have been prosecuting that road quite often all alone or with the complainant in the vehicle, the driver made no query from the people of the vicinity and strangely enough went to report the matter to the complainant next day in the evening of 21.08.2006. That delay remained unexplained and in no case, would admit of any plausible explanation from the complainant. Not only this, the FIR of the incident got to be lodged after further delay of two days on 23.08.2006 at 5:30 p.m. (Paper No. 18) and there being no material on record to indicate that the report had to be lodged after intervention of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, we would not be persuaded to accept that the delay in lodging the FIR was on account of the said reason or at any rate due to the inaction or apathy shown by the police of the concerned police station, i.e., P.S. Niwari of District Ghaziabad. Having considered these aspects of the matter, we have no hesitation in drawing an inference that by no cogent reason, the complainant or his driver was restrained from lodging the FIR at the earliest and in fact, all that unexplained delay and the conduct, can safely said to be indicative of concoction of facts, so as to set up a story of theft, which may enable the complainant to lay claim for insurance money. 8. In view of above, the insurance company was justified in invoking condition Nos. 1 and 4 of the policy of insurance in taking up a deliberate and considered decision to repudiate the theft claim of the complainant. It need to be stated that condition No. 1 of the policy stipulated that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and condition No. 4 mandated that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. In this case, the insured had not taken the proper precaution to prevent the theft of the vehicle, by reason of leaving the vehicle unattended and unlocked with ignition key on and even leaving the documents inside at the time of the alleged incident of theft. In this case, the insured had not taken the proper precaution to prevent the theft of the vehicle, by reason of leaving the vehicle unattended and unlocked with ignition key on and even leaving the documents inside at the time of the alleged incident of theft. Further, the information of the alleged theft was given after 2½ days to the insurance company and which delay do not stand explained in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above and which persuaded us to draw an inference that the story, as has been set up by the complainant, appear concocted. The District Forum, under these circumstances, was not at all justified in observing that the police normally do not co-operate in getting the FIR of the theft of vehicle registered and the delay in giving the information was also caused due to the time taken by the complainant or his man in making the search of the vehicle. We may in proper perspective and merely went by the allegation as set up in the complaint that the driver had urgency due to sickness to leave the vehicle unattended with ignition key and documents inside, although the conduct of the driver and the story, clearly belie the incident of theft as has been set up to lay claim for insurance money. The conclusion drawn by the District Forum was not, thus, justified and it could not have, therefore, been held that the insurance company made deficiency in service in repudiating the theft claim even after much deliberation and consideration of the peculiar facts of the case. The impugned order in allowing the complaint and awarding compensation, therefore, can not be legally maintained. Here, we may also state that the afore-mentioned four decisions, would also support our conclusions, in view of the fact that in the first reported decision, vehicle was left outside the shop unattended and unlocked. Claim preferred by the insured was repudiated by reason of violation of policy terms. In the second reported decision, the insured vehicle was left parked on the road without lock in the night and was stolen. The insured was not found entitled to receive compensation. In the third reported decision, insured vehicle broke down and was left on road side overnight unattended and unprotected. It was stolen and the repudiation of the claim was found justified. The insured was not found entitled to receive compensation. In the third reported decision, insured vehicle broke down and was left on road side overnight unattended and unprotected. It was stolen and the repudiation of the claim was found justified. In the last reported case, there was cash-in-transit policy and the hard cash in the basket of scooter was left unattended and the amount was stolen. FIR was not immediately lodged. Claim preferred was repudiated due to the violation of the policy terms. The facts of these reported decisions, apply fairly to the facts of the instant case and we have, thus, stated that our view stand fortified by these decisions also. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal succeed and is to be allowed. 10. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 12.05.2008 of the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 136/2007 is dismissed. No order as to costs.