1. This appeal has been filed U/S-15 of Consumer protection Act 1986(Herein after called the Act) against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission, Sundargarh-11,Rourkela in consumer Complaint No. 39/2016. The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.

 2.        The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that the Complainant being the owner of Hero Honda Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. OD-14-5579 has purchased Insurance policy for the vehicle  covering period from 13-03-2015 to12-03-2016 for R34,300/-. On 14-06-2015. Said vehicle was stolen away on 22-06-2015.The matter was reported also on 22-06-2015 but intimation of theft was given to O.P on 30-06-2015  During course of service the O.P found that there is violation of policy condition as the theft was not reported immediately to the O.P Bank .Then the complaint is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

3. O.P filed written version stating that the allegation was false. Information was given immediately to the police not to O.P. There is policy condition that the matter should be informed to the insurer immediately .Therefore the claim is not maintainable. It is also stated that the policy condition states that matter should inform immediately. When there is violation of policy condition, there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

4. After hearing of both parties, Learned District Forum passed the following order:-

    “In our considered opinion, the complainant should be compensated in terms of his claim for the loss of vehicle .We therefore, allowed the complaint partly. We direct the OP- Insurance company to settle the claim on non- standard basis. I.e 75% of the I.D value and to pay Rs. 2000/- (rupees two thousand) as costs to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly the C.C case is disposed of.”

5.          Learned counsel on behalf of appellant submitted that admittedly there was lodging F.I.R delay. There is a decision whether it is stated that either police or insured should be informed immediately. When admitted that there is delay in lodging FIR for one month and delay in informing insurer.  Learned District Forum committed error in law by allowing complaint. It should be set aside.

06.      Considered the submission, perused DFR and impugned order. It is revealed that occurrence took place on 14-06-2015 but FIR was lodged on 22-06-2015. Thereafter O.P was informed. In view of decision in Gurusindar Singh (Supra) delay not being explained, there is violation of condition of policy. So Complainant is not entitled to insurance compensation. So impugned order is set aside, Appeal is allowed. No cost.

   Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.

                                    DFR be sent back forthwith.