Justice Ajit Bharihoke (ORAL) The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan dated 25.01.2017 in F.A. No.50/2017 has preferred this revision petition. 2. Briefly states facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the vehicle, namely, TATA Pickup, Registration No.RJ02-1G-0416 owned by the petitioner was insured with the OP-Insurance company. The insurance cover was valid with effect from 02.08.2013 to 01.08.2014. 3. It is a case of the petitioner that the said vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of 22/23.01.2014. The FIR was lodged at the concerned police station by Shri Raj Kumar Sharma-Brother/Attorney of the petitioner. It is alleged that intimation of theft was also given to the OP-Insurance Company. Despite of the efforts of the police, the vehicle could not be recovered. The petitioner thus filed an insurance claim, which was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the intimation of theft was not given to the insurance company, which amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in District Forum, Alwar. 4. The consumer complaint was resisted by the OP-Insurance Company. The OP justified the repudiation of the insurance claim on the ground that no intimation of theft as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy was given. 5. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence dismissed the complaint on the premise that the ground taken by the OP for repudiation of the insurance claim was justified. 6. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The appeal however, was filed after inordinate delay of 299 days. The State Commission after hearing the appellant declined to condone the delay of 299 days and dismissed the appeal. The relevant observation of the State Commission is reproduced as under:- “An application filed U/s 5 of Limitation Act for the condonation of delay of 299 days. Appellant submits that he was suffered due to illness but could not produce any relevant document proved the period of 299 days of the illness of the appellant. Appellant heard on the merits also. Appellant that his vehicle was theft but he did not inform the insurance company. The said theft of the vehicle was on 22.01.2014, while the legal notice was issued on 07.05.2014 and prior to that neither the FIR had been registered nor the insurance company was informed. So the case/complaint was rightly rejected. Hence, the present appeal has no ground; Present appeal is not admissible on the ground of merits as well as on delay.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission is fallen in error in declining to condone the delay of 299 days despite of the fact that the petitioner had explained in the application for condonation of delay that due to illness, he could not file the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation of 30 days. We do not find merit in the above contention, firstly for the reason that the nature of illness is not disclosed and no medical certificate was submitted before the State Commission to substantiate the allegation that illness prevented the appellant for filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, the impugned order of the State Commission dismissing the application for condonation of delay cannot be faulted. 8. Otherwise also, even on merits, the appellant does not have a case for the reason that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy undisputedly in the event of theft the petitioner was supposed to give immediate intimation in writing to the insurance company. Though the petitioner in the complaint has vaguely mentioned that intimation of theft was given to the insurance company but neither the copy of intimation letter has been filed nor the date, on which intimation given to the insurance company, is mentioned in the complaint. On our query, as to whether the petitioner can show us copy of the written intimation of theft sent to the insurance company, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that no written intimation was sent but the petitioner approached the insurance company several times and orally told about the theft. From this, it is evident that no intimation was given to the insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company was justified in repudiating the insurance claim. Reference be made to judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha in Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010 decided on 17.08.2010 as also the judgment of the National Commission in the matter of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane passed in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009. 9. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. | 
