Delay of 22 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Complainant/respondent purchased Mahindra Jeep after getting it financed for Rs.4,15,000/- from Mahindra & Mahindra Financer Services. He got the jeep insured from the appellant for the period from 27th March 2009 to 26 March 2010. The vehicle was stolen on 28.04.2009 at Jaipur. Though, FIR was lodged immediately on 29.04.2009, intimation about the loss was given to the petitioner insurance company on 07.10.2009, after a delay of 160 days. Alleging that the insurance company failed to settle the claim, respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay the Insured Declared Value of Rs.4,15,000/- to him along with interest and costs of litigation. Petitioner after service put in appearance and filed its Written Statement taking the stand that as per conditions of the policy complainant was required to inform the petitioner insurance company -3- about the loss within 48 hours whereas the intimation was given to it after 160 days which deprived the petitioner insurance company to enquire into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same; that the delayed intimation of the theft of the vehicle was fatal. District Forum over ruling the objection taken by the petitioner by observing thus: “6. The condition of the policy is that loss should be intimated within 48 hours. Loss occurred on 28/04/2009 at 9.25 pm due to theft. After making searches the loss was intimated to the Police on 29/4/2009. According to the Complainant intimation was also given to the Financier. The Finance Company had promised to process the claim with the Insurance Company. But they informed the Insurance Company only on 7/10/2009. The complainant therefore cannot be faulted for the delay in intimating the Insurance Company. The Complainant had informed the Police about the loss on 29/4/2009, And thus complied with the condition of the Policy regarding intimating the loss. The Financier was given a copy of the F.I.R. also.” (Emphasis supplied) allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,15,000/- to the complainant/respondent within one month failing which the -4- awarded amount was to carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of decision till realization. Rs.1,000/- were awarded by way of costs. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission disposed of the appeal by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order which runs thus: “The judgment of the District Forum has been examined. It is clear the theft of the vehicle on 28/4/2009. The Complainant lodged F.I.R. on 29/4/2009 at the police station, Mansarover, Jaipur and the finance Company was also informed. There is no good reason to interfere with the Orders of the District Forum. The appeal therefore require to be dismissed. Upholding the judgment of the District Forum, Hanuman Gad dated 7/2/2011, in Complaint No.199/2010 the appeal of the Appellant is dismissed. The amount of Rs.25000/- definted by the Appellant before the District Forum, Hanuman Gad with interest thereon should be paid to the claimant and the balance of the amount awarded by the District Forum should be paid to the claimant by the Appellant within one month from the date of the Order.” State Commission has simply endorsed the findings recorded by the District Forum. State Commission being the first court of appeal is the final court of fact and was required to pass a speaking -5- order after noticing the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and recording reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at. What to speak of reasons, the State Commission has not even noticed the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. We would have remitted back the case to the State Commission, but for the fact that the dispute between the parties is concluded against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner by a judgment of Supreme Court in “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha – Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010, no purpose would be served by remitting the case to the State Commission and putting the parties to unnecessary costs of litigation. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha’s case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance company, insured was duty bound to inform the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident; that on account of delayed intimation, insurance company was deprived of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same; that the insurance company could not -6- be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the insured as the insured did not comply with the terms of the policy. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha’s case (supra) read as under: “Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent -7- was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.” In the present case, as per conditions of the policy complainant was required to inform the petitioner insurance company about the loss within 48 hours whereas intimation about the theft of vehicle was given to the petitioner after 160 days. Delay of 160 days in intimating the petitioner about the theft of vehicle is fatal. It deprived the petitioner of its legitimate right to conduct an enquiry into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the insured. -8- Respectfully following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pravesh Chander Chadha’s case (supra) it is held that the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the respondent. For the reasons stated above, orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
