V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1. The complainant is the owner of a Scooty vehicle bearing registration No.CG04/DB5474. The aforesaid vehicle was got registered by the complainant with the respondent-Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company for the period from 28-02-2011 to 21-08-2011 vide policy No.73647127. Alleging that the aforesaid vehicle had been stolen while parked at the house of the complainant on 14-05-2011, a report was lodged with Police Station Pandari in Raipur on 18-05-2011 and the same was registered there vide Crime No.180 of 2011. After carrying out the investigations, a final report was submitted by the police to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur on 31-07-2011. Throughout this period, the complainant did not bother to intimate the accident to the insurance company. The matter was reported to the insurance company after about two and half months and a claim for Rs.21,000/- was submitted. Since the claim was repudiated, the insured filed a complaint before the concerned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum) seeking a direction to the insurance company to pay the aforesaid amount of claim along with interest, travel expenses, compensation, etc., thereby making a total sum of Rs.41,250/-. 2. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company primarily on the grounds that the vehicle was left unattended by the complainant without proper precautions and the alleged theft was deliberately not intimated to the insurance company. It was intimated to them only after submission of the final report by the police. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.15,750/- along with interest besides Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. 4. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the insurance company preferred an appeal before the Chattisgarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Raipur (for short, the State Commission). Vide impugned order dated 20-12-2013, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. The order of the State Commission was passed primarily on the ground that the accident was intimated to the insurance company after about two and half months of the occurrence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that though as per the terms & conditions of the insurance company the petitioner was required to intimate the accident to the insurance company immediately after the occurrence, the breach was not fundamental in nature and no prejudice was caused to the insurance company on account of a delay in reporting the matter. 6. A perusal of the order of the State Commission would show that the aforesaid order is based upon several decisions of this Commission including its decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC), Satpal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ld. & Ors., IV (2013) CPJ 15 (NC) and Suman Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 1 (2013) CPJ 713 (NC). 7. In Trilochan Jane (supra), this Commission inter alia observed and held as under: "9. In the case of theft where 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 insurer should also be informed within a day or two 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 deprives the insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace / help in tracing the vehicle. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited. v. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC) = V (2004) SLT 876 = JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that the terms of Policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the same. The Policy provides that in the case of theft, the matter should be reported immediately. In the context of a theft of the car, word immediately’ has to be construed strictly to make the insurance company liable to pay the compensation. 8. In Satpal (supra), this Commission took the following view: 2. As far as merits of the case are concerned, learned State Commission rightly allowed appeal as there was delay of more days 30 days in intimation to Insurance Company and thus, petitioner violated terms and conditions of the policy. Learned State Commission rightly placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Trilochan Jane, IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) and Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., VIII (2010) SLT 375 = IV (2010) ACC 653 (SC) = IV (2010) CPJ 38 (SC) and rightly allowed appeal. 9. In Suman (supra) there was a delay of 85 hours in lodging the FIR and delay of 14 days in giving intimation to the insurance company. It was held by this Commission that the claim had been rightly repudiated by the insurance company. In the present case the delay in reporting the matter to the police is more than 85 hours and the delay in reporting the matter to the insurance company is about two and half months. Therefore, the view taken by this Commission in the above referred cases applies to this case with a greater force. For the reasons stated herein above, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.