JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J The repudiation of a claim made by the respondent herein at the hands of the appellant insurance company, namely the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., is the basis for the proceedings which lead to this appeal. 2. The first appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and the second appellant is its regional manager. The appellants entered into a “commercial vehicles package policy,” which is an insurance contract with the respondent, who was the owner of a lorry bearing registration No.KL-02/D-2275. This insurance policy was valid from 17.01.2002 to 16.01.2003. The allegation of the respondent is that his vehicle had been stolen on 06.11.2002 between 2.15 and 2.30 p.m. and he thus raised a claim with the 1st appellant company on the strength of the policy referred to above which was, however, repudiated by the appellants on the accusation that the respondent had not taken reasonable care against the possibility of such a theft and they allege that the respondent acted in violation of condition Nos. 5 and 8 of the policy, thus entitling them to refuse his claim through a valid repudiation. Faced with this, the respondent filed O.S.No.112 of 2006 on the files of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam against the appellants praying that a decree be issued directing them to pay an amount of Rs.4,05,000/-, along with interest @12% from the date of the claim till payment. The court below allowed the suit after trial, decreeing it directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.4,05,000/-along with 6% interest for Rs.4,00,000/-from 07.11.2002 till realisation. The appellants have filed this appeal, impugning the judgment and decree of the court below, on various grounds. 3. We have heard Sri.Sunil Shankar, assisted by Smt.Parvathi.K., learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Leo George, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The constitutive facts, which led to the claim being raised by the respondent on the strength of the policy, are that the vehicle owned by the respondent, which was admittedly covered by the policy, was parked 120 mtrs. away from the “Premier Junction” at Kalamassery in Cochin on 06.11.2002. 4. The constitutive facts, which led to the claim being raised by the respondent on the strength of the policy, are that the vehicle owned by the respondent, which was admittedly covered by the policy, was parked 120 mtrs. away from the “Premier Junction” at Kalamassery in Cochin on 06.11.2002. According to the respondent, this vehicle had just returned from Ahmedabad to Cochin and that the driver of the lorry, who was attempting to find a load, through a lorry broker at Kalamassery, to transport back to Kollam, left it in the care of the cleaner and that when the cleaner was also called by the lorry broker's office to produce certain documents, including challans for payment, the lorry was stolen between 2.15 p.m. and 2.30 p.m., during the period which it was so left unattended. The claim conceded that the driver of the lorry had left the key of the vehicle, along with all other statutory and ownership documents of the same, in an overhead glovebox and that he had taken the key of the said glovebox with him when he went to the broker's office. 5. The appellant insurance company, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that the respondent, his driver and his cleaner were negligent in dealing with the vehicle, which according to them contributed to the theft itself. The appellant insurance company relies upon two conditions of the insurance policy, which has been marked and evidenced as Ext.B1. The two conditions therein, namely Nos. 5 and 8, reads as under: Condition No.5: The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured 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 insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are affected, any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's risk. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are affected, any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's risk. Condition No.8: The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of this Policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be condition precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this policy. 6. As far as condition No.5 is concerned, it provides that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in an efficient condition. The latter limb of the said condition relates to the event when the vehicle is involved in an accident and it provides that should such an accident occur, it shall not be left unattended without proper precaution. As far as condition No.8 is concerned, it is a general clause which says that due observance and fulfillment of all the conditions and endorsement of the policy shall be adhered by the insured and that the truth of the statements and answers in the proposal shall be a condition precedent to the liability. The effect of these two conditions are virtually that the contract is being one entered uberrimafides, the insured will be entitled to make a claim only if he complies strictly with the conditions and covenants of the contract. 7. We see that the court below had taken the suit to trial and examined the plaintiff and the driver of the vehicle Sri.Vasudevan as PW1 and PW2 respectively and that Exts.A1 to A5 documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants Sri.P.V.Krishnamoorthy, the Manager of the first appellant company was examined as DW1 and the private investigator employed by the insurance company, who looked into the case of the theft, was examined as DW2. Exts.B1 to B5 documents were also marked on the side of the defendants. On the side of the defendants Sri.P.V.Krishnamoorthy, the Manager of the first appellant company was examined as DW1 and the private investigator employed by the insurance company, who looked into the case of the theft, was examined as DW2. Exts.B1 to B5 documents were also marked on the side of the defendants. The court below on an assessment of all these material and evidence on record, however, entered into a conclusion that the action of the company in repudiating the claim was without any basis and legally unsustainable. 8. We have examined the judgment of the court below, which is assailed in this appeal, as also the materials and the evidence available. Ext.A1 is the letter of repudiation issued by the company. As is ineluctable from it, the company only says therein that they are repudiating the claim because the respondent herein, namely the insured, had violated condition Nos.5 and 8 of the policy. Ext.A1 is laconic and says nothing more than extracting these two conditions but it is conspicuously silent as to how the insured can be seen to have violated these two conditions. Of course, the further material on record would show that the action of the appellant company in repudiating the claim is based on their own investigation that was caused to be done through DW2, the private investigator, who had also given an investigation report to the company, which has been produced and recorded as Exts.B2 and B3. These two reports, which DW2 says, has been made after detailed investigation virtually finds that the appellant and his servants, namely the driver and cleaner, were culpable in the theft and he also insinuates that the police are also complicit one way or the other in the said event. The reasoning that went into the mind of DW2, about which he has also deposes in evidence, is that the police were rather negligent in the manner in which they dealt with the crime and he says that there was several instances of theft from the area in question in the last few months prior. He, therefore, gets into an inference, based on surmises and conjectures, that the thefts that were reported from that area was on an account of either complicity of the police personnel or on account of complete mismanagement by the investigating officers of the police department. He, therefore, gets into an inference, based on surmises and conjectures, that the thefts that were reported from that area was on an account of either complicity of the police personnel or on account of complete mismanagement by the investigating officers of the police department. The relevant portion of Ext.B2 investigation report made by DW2 reads as under:- From my investigation I find lots of anomalies in the claim. The entire documents, key etc. were kept inside the Driver's cabin. Although the theft was noticed within 15-20 minutes neither the driver nor the cleaner intimate the theft to Control Room Telephone No.100 which is a common number all over India. The diesel tank was having around 220 litres, which is sufficient to cross the boarder freely because all original documents were in the lorry by the time of theft was reported to police ie; after 26 hours. Police while registering the crime deliberately deleted the important points ie; all documents and key is also missing along with lorry. Further the reason stated by complainant that he went to verify whether the financier seized the vehicle due to non payment of loan availed was not verified the police. As on the day of theft the balance amount to be paid to financier against Rs.2,25,000/-. Loan availed on 11.12.2000, was Rs.18,652/-. (it is an unofficial practice even known to police that financier seize the vehicle of payments are defaulted by more than 3 months continuously because for every delay exorbitant additional interest is levied). Enclosed herewith please find a circular issued by National Crime Record Bureau (confidential and for your eyes only) dated 26.07.2000. All vehicle theft cases should be intimated immediately to District Crime Record Bureau and District Crime Record Bureau should intimate State Crime Record Bureau. State Crime Record Bureau should National Crime Record Bureau and National Crime Record bureau acknowledge the receipt of information back the police station concerned within 7 days. I understand from retired police personnel that no such practices are followed in Kerala. This is, to the best of my knowledge 10th lorry stolen between Kalamassery and Aluva within the past 3 years with all original documents. Police had arrested ex convicts who are behind these crimes however no action was initiated to recover the vehicles. I understand from retired police personnel that no such practices are followed in Kerala. This is, to the best of my knowledge 10th lorry stolen between Kalamassery and Aluva within the past 3 years with all original documents. Police had arrested ex convicts who are behind these crimes however no action was initiated to recover the vehicles. All these vehicles are given to these criminals who arrange dismantling or sales (because all original documents are with them) with the knowledge and connivance of R/C owner. One of the lorries disappeared in identical way was seized by Excise Department, Wynad with forged registration names. Many original documents are used by owners of similar vehicles which Insurance Companies settled on Cash/Total loss basis. One of the hurdles what Police Department is facing is expenses which cannot be accounted by them. Even if they arrest an ex convict, it may take one or two days questioning to confess the crime. Keeping an arrested person for more than 24 Hours in custody is violation of Supreme Court order. Again the recovery of stolen vehicle based on confession may take days and often one or two weeks because these vehicles must have been sold or dismantled from other states. Police should take the accused to wherever it is at their expenses. The question is why should police take such risks? Crimes Squads of various Districts, known to me personally has agreed to recover the stolen vehicles or persuade the R/C owner to withdraw the claim provided we meet their expenses or reward suitably I think this is a point to be discussed, viewed perceptively and seriously as the theft claims are reported every day. I am not convinced about the theft reported by insured. On 31.10.2003 he has paid Rs.50,000/-to financier and settled their accounts (Receipt attached). I strongly believe that it is high time we seek help of police to recover the stolen vehicles even if we have to spend few percentage of its value as recovery expenses. In the case of insured you may write a letter to Director General of Police. Police Head Quarters, Trivandrum pointing out all anomalies and requesting re enquiry. This will enable us to delay the claim settlement of give sufficient time to decide whether we should seek police help and of course justify our action in case the insured approaches any redressal forums. Police Head Quarters, Trivandrum pointing out all anomalies and requesting re enquiry. This will enable us to delay the claim settlement of give sufficient time to decide whether we should seek police help and of course justify our action in case the insured approaches any redressal forums. Submitted without any prejudice for your information. 9. After recording as above in Ext.B2, the Private Ivestigator, DW2, went on to file his “final report” before the appellant company, which has been marked as Ext.B3. In the said report, he categorically enters a conclusion that the insured and his employee did not comply with the policy conditions and that they had left the original documents and key in the lorry carelessly, which according to him, led to the theft. 10. The appellant company appears to have been guided completely by the reports obtained by them from DW2, namely, Exts.B2 & B3. The apparent force with which DW2 has recorded in these reports regarding the alleged laxity and dereliction of the driver and cleaner of the lorry perhaps led them to believe that the theft was suspicious in nature and that it occurred only on account of the negligence and mismanagement by the driver and the cleaner. They seem to suggest that if the driver had taken the key of the lorry with him, the theft could have been averted. The reasons for repudiating the claim is founded on the premise that since the driver had left the key along with the documents, admittedly in the lorry itself, the theft, which could have been easily averted, had thus occurred due to their negligence. 11. In support of these contentions, Sri.Sunil Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants again reads condition No.5 of Ext.B1 policy and says vehemently that the insured should have taken all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. According to him, the fact that the driver had left the keys along with the original papers of the vehicle inside the glovebox of the vehicle would show that they had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle. He goes on to say that notwithstanding whether the theft would have happened otherwise, the fact that the driver of the vehicle admittedly left the key and papers inside the lorry would be sufficient reason for the appellants to repudiate the claim. He goes on to say that notwithstanding whether the theft would have happened otherwise, the fact that the driver of the vehicle admittedly left the key and papers inside the lorry would be sufficient reason for the appellants to repudiate the claim. He says that the action of the driver and cleaner of the lorry in leaving the key in such a manner, along with the documents, inside the glovebox is completely negligent and would give a valid cause to the insurance company to refuse to honour the claim. In support of these contentions, Sri.Sunil Shankar cites the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Madras in Venkatachalam v. Sundarambal Ammal and Anr. [AIR 1983 Mad 197]. He reads from the said judgment and asserts that the facts of that case is akin to the facts involved in this case. 12. We have seen the judgment, and notice that the Madras High Court had delivered it in the context of a vehicle in which the driver had left the key in the ignition, when somebody else entered the vehicle and drove it, causing an accident. The findings of the Madras High Court was that this was an irresponsible action on the side of the driver of the vehicle and, therefore, that the owner of the vehicle was vicariously liable and consequently liable to pay damages caused to a third party. We are not sure how the facts of that case would apply to the facts involved in this appeal. The case at hand is not one where the driver of the vehicle had left the key in the ignition, but had safely kept it in the glovebox, along with the original papers and had locked it and taken out the key of the glovebox with him. This is not a case where the ignition of the vehilce was let unattended with the key on it but the driver actually kept it away in the overhead glovebox of the vehicle. From that perspective alone, it becomes obvious that the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, referred to above, cannot apply to the facts of this case at all. 13. From that perspective alone, it becomes obvious that the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, referred to above, cannot apply to the facts of this case at all. 13. Notwithstanding this, we are certain in our mind that had this been a case where the keys of the lorry had been left on the ignition and the lorry had been left unattended in a casual manner, it would have perhaps attracted some merit on the side of the appellants in repudiating the claim. This is not a case of that nature at all. This is a case where the keys were not left unattended, it was in fact kept locked in an overhead glove compartment and the key of that glove compartment was taken by the driver of the lorry. We fail to understand how condition No.5 of the policy could have been found to be violated in this case because, we are certain that the driver had taken reasonable care in keeping the key protected in a glove compartment, the key of which was in his custody. This is more so because PW1, the owner of the lorry while being examined as a witness, stated categorically that the keys and the documents of the lorry were not left in a casual manner or unattended inside the lorry but kept in the glove compartment locked by his driver. This version of PW1 has not been controverted at all in cross examination, but on the contrary, it virtually stands proved. 14. Therefore, the question as to the negligence of the driver in leaving the vehicle unattended would not be applicable in this case at all because what is required by condition No.5 of Ext.A1 is that the vehicle shall be safeguarded from loss or damage in a reasonable manner. It does not even say that the vehicle shall not be left unattended always because the word 'unattended' is only in the second limb of condition No.5 of Ext.A1, where it refers to a vehicle that is involved in an accident. In this case the vehicle was not involved in an accident but it was left parked on a busy junction. In this case the vehicle was not involved in an accident but it was left parked on a busy junction. True, the driver and the cleaner of the lorry had left it for a short period of time for negotiating with the lorry brokers, during which the vehicle was stolen but does not mean that they were negligent or that they have acted foul of the conditions of the policy. 15. We further see that the reason why the appellant insurance company has refused the claim is also on the ground that the factum of the theft was not reported to the police in time. According to them, even though the vehicle was stolen between 2.15 p.m and 2.30 p.m. on 06.11.2002, an FIR was registered by the driver only on 07.11.2002 at 5.p.m., i.e., after about 26 hours. This FIR has been registered as crime No.515/2002 and the records reveal that it has been registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. At first glance, this would be enough reason for the insurance company to repudiate the claim. However, on closer scrutiny the facts reveal to be slightly different. The evidence on record, specifically the evidence of PW1 as well as the evidence of DW1, the Manager of the insurance company, would clearly show that soon after the theft, the driver and the cleaner had gone to the nearest Police Station namely, the Kalamassery Police Station, and that the Police Officers there, on the suspicion that the vehicle may have been re-possessed by the financing company, suggested to them to contact the owner, namely, the respondent herein and find out whether this was a case of such re-possession. The driver and the cleaner, thereafter, contacted the respondent, and PW1 has deposed specifically that it was after they made such an enquiry with the finance company to confirm that this was not a case of repossession, that they went back to the Police station and registered a crime on 7.11.2017 at about 5 am. It is this delay of about 26 hours that the insurance company has used as its primary excuse to repudiate the claim. This delay, as a general principle, would perhaps be enough for the insurance company to do so. It is this delay of about 26 hours that the insurance company has used as its primary excuse to repudiate the claim. This delay, as a general principle, would perhaps be enough for the insurance company to do so. But in the facts of this case, going by the uncontroverted version that the driver of the lorry had, in fact, gone to the Kalamassery Police Station soon after the vehicle was stolen, would completely impeach the stand of the insurance company that they would not honour the claim merely on account of the alleged delay. The specific facts presented in this case would show that there is no delay at all in registering the crime and that the driver and the cleaner, as also the respondent, have employed all due diligence and care in ensuring that the theft was reported in time. Add to this, the fact that even the insurance company does not have a contention that the theft occurred on account of any illegal complicity on the part of the respondent and his men as also the concede fact that the police had closed the case of theft as “undetected” would show that this was a genuine case of theft and that the appellant insurance company was liable to indemnify the insured/ the respondent herein as per the terms of the policy. 16. Sri.Sunil Shankar learned counsel appearing for the appellants at this point submits that the insurance company also had another reason why it had repudiated the claim. He says that the vehicle was admittedly found to have more than 220 litres of fuel in it and this leads to a suspicion that the theft was in event that was orchestrated by the respondent and his servants. He says that no reasonable man would have left 220 liters of fuel inside the lorry and then left it unattended, virtually giving a free hand to a person to attempt theft of the same. 17. The evidence on record would, however, show the true factual scenario being different. He says that no reasonable man would have left 220 liters of fuel inside the lorry and then left it unattended, virtually giving a free hand to a person to attempt theft of the same. 17. The evidence on record would, however, show the true factual scenario being different. The driver of the lorry has categorically stated in his deposition as PW2, that while the vehicle was travelling back from Ahmedabad to Cochin, it travelled through the area of Mahi, which is a Union Territory and that since the cost of fuel is lower there, the lorry, as is done by every other vehicle, was fuelled in one of the pumps there, and that the tank was full when it left Mahi. He has also testified that the vehicle was refuelled because they were sure that they would get some consignment from Cochin for transport to Kollam, for which the vehicle was required to be fully fuelled, because for a fully loaded vehicle, to complete the drive from Mahi to Kollam through Cochin would require about 120 liters. We do not see anything that is suspicious in the testimony of PW2 and on the contrary, we think that it is a justifiable explication that he has made out. This is also because even in spite of the most vigorous cross examination, the testimony of neither PW2 or PW1 is seen to have been impeached by the appellant insurance company in any manner on these counts. We, therefore, do not find that the factum of the vehicle having about 220 liters of fuel in it would be an unusual or suspicious circumstance which would warrant an inference of complicity on the side of servants of the respondent in the theft of the vehicle. 18. The facts that have been proved in this case and the evidence that have been let in by the parties would make it abundantly clear that this is not a case where the respondent or his men can be found to be in any manner culpable or negligent, thus leading to the theft. The driver, in our view, had taken reasonable care, as would be expected of a person of this nature, in having left the key inside the overhead glove compartment of the vehicle and in locking it and taking it away with him. The driver, in our view, had taken reasonable care, as would be expected of a person of this nature, in having left the key inside the overhead glove compartment of the vehicle and in locking it and taking it away with him. There is no case even for the appellant insurance company that the key of the glow compartment was available in the vehicle and they virtually admit this even going by Exts.P1 and P2 report of the investigator. It was during a small window of time, during which the cleaner had left the vehicle unattended temporarily, that the theft occurred. We cannot find any thing unusual in this scenario and we do not see how the insurance company can be justified in repudiating the claim, merely based on Exts.P2 and P3, which according to us are the products of conjunctures and surmises. We do not want to say any thing more regarding the evidentiary value of Exts.P2 and P3 or the testimony of PW2, the private investigator, except that even this testimony would show that he had not at any point of time, cared to contact the police officer in charge of the crime and to find out whether the theft had occurred in a manner that was alleged and pleaded by the respondent. His testimony is luculent that he did not go to the Police Station nor had he contacted the investigating police officers but he has still chosen, in Ext.B2, to insinuate that the police are also complicit in such events in that area. This attitude of PW2, in our view, does not deserve any legal recognition and the surmises in Exts.P2 and P3 against the police is, in our opinion, completely untenable. We, therefore, cannot find favour with Exts.P2 or P3 or with Ext.A1, which is the letter of repudiation issued by the appellant company. 19. In such view of the matter and in the summation of what we have said above, we see no reason to allow this appeal or to interfere, in any manner, with the views and conclusions taken and entered into by the court below. We, therefore, find ourselves compelled to dismiss this appeal, but in the peculiar circumstances we have noticed above, we refrain from imposing costs and leave the parties to suffer their respective costs in this appeal. 20. We, therefore, find ourselves compelled to dismiss this appeal, but in the peculiar circumstances we have noticed above, we refrain from imposing costs and leave the parties to suffer their respective costs in this appeal. 20. Once we have ordered the appeal as above, we now come to the question of the cross objection that has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit. The cross objection is limited to the extent that he claims 12% interest instead of 6% interest as has been awarded by the court below. We do not find on what forensic basis the claim in the cross objection is edificed. We can only presume that the plaintiff has made this claim because commercial transaction would attract 12% interest at the relevant point of time. Even if this be so, we do not find any reason to grant 12% interest to the plaintiff or to grant any interest in excess of what has been granted by the court below. In such perspective, we are of the opinion that the court below has decreed the suit in a very circumspect manner, granting 6% interest, which in our view is also completely justifiable in the facts of the case. We, therefore, dismiss the cross objection also, but without ordering costs.