REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 04.02.2015 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no.FA 14/22. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner - complainant are that the petitioner was the owner of the truck bearing registration no. CG 04 JA 3055 which was insured with the respondent-insurance company under insurance policy no. 2010 V 0798640 P C V for the period from 16.06.2010 to 15.06.2011. The incident of theft occurred on 01.07.2010 within the jurisdiction of police station, Malegaon and on the date of occurrence of theft, the insurance policy of the vehicle in question was in force. The incident was reported to the concerned police station and on receiving the same, a crime was registered and also the incident of theft was intimated to the respondent - insurance company as well as to the financier of the vehicle. All the relevant documents were given to the respondent - insurance company but the respondent-insurance company did not settle the claim of the petitioner and hence, committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against the respondent - insurance company and prayed that the respondent – insurance company be directed to pay the price of the vehicle, i.e., Rs.12,00,000/- and any other relief the Hon’ble Forum deems fit. 3. The respondent – insurance company appeared before the District Forum and filed the written statement. The respondent – insurance company denied all the allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner and denied all the contents which are against the respondent – insurance company. The fact that the vehicle was insured was not disputed but the same was done subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the policy. It was denied that any intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given immediately in fact it was belated. It was pleaded by the respondent – insurance company that the intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was given after 28 days from the date of alleged incident and First Information Report was also not lodged immediately and intimation regarding this was given to the RTO after 29 days from the date of alleged incident and thus the petitioner committed breach of policy conditions, hence, the petitioner was not entitled to get compensation as mentioned in the complaint. The complaint filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed with cost. 4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (CG) (‘District Forum’) vide its order dated 21.11.2013 while allowing the complaint, passed the following order: “After considering the entire observation the complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the CP Act 1986 the complaint is admitted and the OP is directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of order; The OP will pay the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- IDV value of the vehicle to the complainant and interest @ 6% from 27.01.2012. The OP will pay the amount of Rs.1000/- as the cost of the suit.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent - opposite party – insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while allowing the appeal has observed as under: “In the instant case the incident took place on 01.07.2010 and first information report was lodged before the concerned police station on 09.07.2010, i.e., after near about 8 days of the incident and the matter was reported to the appellant (OP) after 28 days of the incident and even intimation regarding the incident was given to the RTO after 29 days from the date of the alleged incident. The respondent (complainant) has not given any plausible and reliable explanation for delayed intimation. Due to delayed intimation to the appellant (OP), the appellant (OP) was deprived of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted into the alleged incident of theft. In the instant case, the First Information Report was lodged belated and intimation regarding the incident was also given to the appellant (OP) at the belated stage, therefore, we find that the respondent/ complainant has violated the terms of the insurance policy, which is fundamental breach of policy, therefore, the appellant (OP) has a right to repudiate the claim of the respondent (complainant) and the appellant (OP) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant). Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, suffers from infirmity, irregularity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. Hence, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant (OP) and set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) also stands dismissed.” 6. Hence, the present revision petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the State Commission had erred in passing the order as there was no condition regarding repudiating the claim for the delayed information to the respondent. He further contended that the delay in filing the FIR and informing the respondent had occurred because, the theft took place in Mumbai and it took some time to go to Mumbai to file the FIR and also to collect the necessary documents and to intimate the respondent. 8. I have gone through the terms and conditions of the policy. Condition no. 1 of the policy reads as under: “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/ or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under the policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender”. 9. On perusing the FIR, it is clear that though the vehicle was stolen on 01.07.2010, the FIR was lodged only on 09.07.2010. The reasons given for the same was that he was searching for the vehicle. We are not convinced by this argument. No convincing reason has been given by the petitioner for the delay of 28 days in intimating to the respondent and delay of 9 days in lodging a complaint with the police. 10. In New India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Trilochan Jane, in FA no. 321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009, (IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) this has been held that – “in the case of theft when no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurers should also be informed within a day or 2 so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days would be a violation of condition of the policy, as it deprivers the insurer offer valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/ help in tracing the vehicle”. 11. In view of the forgoing, I find that there is, no jurisdictional or legal error or misrepresentation of facts have been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed and we uphold the order of the State Commission. | 
