ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.07.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 82 of 2012. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent – complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had got his car bearing registration No. UK08-Q-0492 (Tata Indica DLS) insured with the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited for sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the period from 25.02.2011 to 24.02.2012. It is alleged that during the validity of the policy of insurance, the insured vehicle was stolen 08.08.2011 and an FIR with regard thereto was lodged with the P.S. Mansoorpur, District Muzaffarnagar. Inspite of efforts, the stolen vehicle could not be recovered and, as such, the police submitted the Final Report in the case on 20.09.2011, which was accepted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar vide order dated 14.02.2012. The complainant gave the intimation of theft of the insured car to the insurance company and lodged the claim with the insurance company and also completed the entire formalities. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 21.02.2012 on the ground that the key of the vehicle was left in the vehicle and hence the complainant has failed in taking due care of the vehicle, which is a violation of the policy condition. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was left open by Sh. Anil Kumar (son of the complainant) on highway with key inside; that no proper care was taken to protect and safeguard the insured vehicle; that the intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given by the complainant to the insurance company on 12.08.2011, whereas the vehicle was stolen on 08.08.2011; that the matter was got investigated by the insurance company through Sh. Sanjay Kumar Budakoti, who submitted his report dated 18.11.2011 to the insurance company and on the basis of the said report, the claim was repudiated and that there is no deficiency in their service. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 11.07.2013 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also perused the record. 6. The insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that no proper care was taken to protect the insured vehicle and the son of the complainant has left the vehicle open with key inside on the highway and on account of such negligence on the part of the complainant’s son, the vehicle was stolen. On claim being lodged by the complainant with the insurance company, the insurance company appointed Sh. Sanjay Kumar Budakoti as investigator, who submitted his report dated 18.11.2011 to the insurance company. In the said report, the investigator has clearly stated that on 08.08.2011, Sh. Anil Kumar, the son of the complainant, had taken the insured vehicle to Khatauli and when he was coming back from Khatauli to Roorkee and reached near Muzaffarnagar at 2:00 p.m., he felt uneasiness and had to attend the natural call and stopped the vehicle on the highway and went to the fields for attending the natural call and that in the process, he left the key of the vehicle inside the vehicle and forgot to remove the key of the vehicle and to take the same with him while he was going to attend the natural call and when he came back, the vehicle was found missing from the spot. The investigator has also taken the statement of Sh. Anil Kumar (Paper No. 26), which has duly been signed by him and in the said statement, he has admitted that he left the key of the vehicle inside and forgot to remove the same while he was going to attend the natural call and that the papers of the vehicle were als inside the vehicle. Sh. Anil Kumar (Paper No. 26), which has duly been signed by him and in the said statement, he has admitted that he left the key of the vehicle inside and forgot to remove the same while he was going to attend the natural call and that the papers of the vehicle were als inside the vehicle. Sh. Anil Kumar has stated in so many words that, “-------------------- ftl dkj.k eSa xzke ujk ds lehi lHkokyh QkVd ds ikl xkM+h [kM+h djds ySVfju djus ds fy;s [ksr es pyk x;kA tc eSa okil vk;k rks xkM+h ogk¡ ij ugh FkhA tYnhckth ds dkj.k xkM+h dh pkch xkM+h esa gh jg x;hA eSa fudyuk Hkwy x;k Fkk A”. The above statement of Sh. Anil Kumar given to the investigator has not been denied by him by way of any affidavit or otherwise and the same remained unrebutted. The above statement clearly proves beyond any shadow of doubt that there was total negligence and carelessness on the part of Sh. Anil Kumar, the son of the insured, to whom the insured had given the subject vehicle, in taking proper care and safety of the vehicle. 7. The complainant, by way of his affidavit, has tried to overcome the above statement given by his son to the investigator, but in view of the unrebutted statement given by the son of the complainant, which supports the defence of the insurance company and also the conclusion made by the investigator in his investigation report, we are of the view that there has clearly been negligence and inaction on the part of the son of the complainant in taking proper care and safety of the insured vehicle and he had voluntarily left the key of the vehicle inside the vehicle when he was going to attend the natural call and on account of the key of the vehicle having been left inside and the vehicle left unattended, the same was stolen and, as such, there is clear-cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance on the part of the complainant and the claim of the complainant was not payable and was rightly repudiated by the insurance company. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission given in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shyam Sunder; II (2014) CPJ 567 (NC). 8. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission given in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shyam Sunder; II (2014) CPJ 567 (NC). In the said case, the key of the vehicle was left in the vehicle and the vehicle was stolen. The claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground of negligence by leaving the key in the vehicle. It was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that failure to safeguard the vehicle was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that the complainant’s son was under obligation to take key of the vehicle with him while going to ease out. The said case law is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the instant case too, the son of the complainant has admitted that he forgot to take out the key of the vehicle while going to ease out and when he came back, the vehicle was found missing and was stolen. Thus, he has failed to safeguard the insured vehicle and this by itself is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 9. This apart, the vehicle was stolen on 08.08.2011 and the intimation with regard thereto was given by the complainant to the insurance company on 12.08.2011, as has been pleaded by the insurance company in para 9 of its written statement, which is evident from the letter dated 10.08.2011 written by the complainant to the insurance company on record (Paper No. 20) and which shows that the same was received by the insurance company on 12.08.2011. The complainant has not shown any reason or cause for this delayed intimation to the insurance company and it is also a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant on account of the reason that the policy stipulates that notice shall be given in writing to the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident and in the event of any claim. Thus, the complainant has also committed breach of the above term and condition of the policy and on this count also, the claim of the complainant was not payable by the insurance company. 10. Thus, the complainant has also committed breach of the above term and condition of the policy and on this count also, the claim of the complainant was not payable by the insurance company. 10. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 11.07.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 82 of 2012 is dismissed. No order as to costs.