Chandigarh, July 12 -- The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has upheld an order directing New India Assurance Company Ltd to compensate the owner of a stolen commercial vehicle, holding that the absence of a valid route permit cannot be used to deny an insurance claim for theft when it has no causal connection with the loss. Dismissing the insurer's appeal, the commission affirmed the April 1 order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had directed the company to pay the insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.3.5 lakh, along with 9% simple interest from September 18, 2023, the date on which the claim was repudiated and Rs.10,000 towards compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses. The district commission had also ordered that if the amount was not paid within 45 days, the insurer would be liable to pay penal interest at 12% per annum. The case arose after a Tata truck, insured under a commercial vehicle package policy, was stolen on the intervening night of November 25 and 26, 2021, while parked outside the owner's office in Daria, Chandigarh. Although the theft was reported to the police and an insurance claim was lodged, the insurer rejected the claim, citing the absence of a valid route permit, non-production of the duplicate key and alleged failure by the insured to take reasonable care of the vehicle. The commission observed that the insurer's own investigator had found the theft to be genuine and had recommended that the claim be processed in accordance with the policy. It held that the vehicle was stationary when it was stolen and, therefore, the absence of a route permit had no direct or proximate connection with the theft. The commission also rejected the insurer's contention that the complainant had admitted negligence by stating in the FIR that the old vehicle could be opened with any key. It noted that the FIR consistently alleged that unknown persons had broken the vehicle's window before stealing it and that the insurer had produced no technical or expert evidence to establish that the theft had occurred using another key. Similarly, it held that mere non-production of the duplicate key, without evidence linking it to the theft, could not constitute a fundamental breach of the policy. Holding that the insurer had failed to establish any fraud, collusion or wilful breach of policy conditions by the insured, the commission found no illegality in the district commission's order....