JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Three Revision Petitions, detailed above, revolve round the Insurance amount in respect of a Truck which was stolen. All the three interested parties, i.e., Owner of the Truck, the complainant, Insurance Company and the Bank which advanced the loan for the purchase of the vehicle, have filed three separate Revision Petitions. The facts detailed below will clarify the position further. 2. Kulveer Singh, the Complainant took loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank and purchased a Truck on 28.10.2006. Insurance Policy was obtained by the insured from Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which covered the period from 30.10.2006 to 29.10.2007 for the value of Rs.12,50,500/-. 3. During the last week of October, 2007, Gurpreet Singh, the driver of the Complainant took the said Truck from Jodhpur-Mumbai-Delhi Road. On the way, the truck stopped on G.T. Road, Panipat and Gurpreet Singh, along with Cleaner Ram Singh went to take tea. They came back after 15-20 minutes but the truck was not to be found. A report was lodged with the Police Station, Kundali. The police searched the vehicle but it could not be traced. The police failed to collect any clue against the culprits. Thereafter, the case was disposed of as ntraced 4. The respondents contested the case. The District Forum accepted the complaint against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Respondent No.1 and its Divisional Office, Respondent No.2. It was directed that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant the insured amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, dated 30.03.2009. The District Forum further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation, failing which, the complainant was to get interest @ 9% p.a. on the above said amount of Rs.7,000/- from the respondents from the date of the order till payment. The complaint was dismissed against Kotak Mahindra Bank, respondent No.3. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission reduced the compensation to 75% of the insured amount which the respondents were directed to pay to the complainant. The order of the District Forum was modified only upto that extent. 6. Thereafter, the above said revision petitions were filed, one by Kulveer Singh, the complainant, the other by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and lastly, by Kotak Mahindra Bank. There is delay of 138 days, as reported by the Registry, in filing the revision petition (RP 3879/2011) by Kotak Mahindra Bank, but 175 daysdelay as averred by the petitioner in its application for condonation of delay. It was argued that opinion of the Legal Adviser was forwarded for seeking approval of the competent authority at the Mumbai Head Office of the petitioner Bank. The competent authority took a decision to file the revision petition in terms of the advice of the Delhi Advocate. The Advocate prepared the revision petition and forwarded the same for the signatures of the competent authority and thereafter the revision petition was filed. 7. Now we advert to the second case filed by Kulveer Singh. There is 296 days delay in filing the revision petition (RP 1364/2012). It is submitted that complainant and his family were undergoing precarious financial and emotional crisis inasmuch as the father of the petitioner expired on 13.04.2011 and there was nobody in the family to take care or control over the situation. It must be recalled that this revision petition was filed on 03.04.2012. When the petitioner received the notice in RP 1881/2011 filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No.1, the petitioner, with the efforts of his seniors was able to engage a counsel at Delhi for defending his case. 8. In both the cases, the petitioners have failed to establish the ufficient cause The official procedural delay is no ground for condoning such an inordinate delay of 138/175 and 296 days Again, death of father which occurred one year back to the filing of this revision petition, is of no consequence. It appears that when Insurance Company sent the notice, only in that event, the counter-blast in the shape of counter revision petition was filed. This appears to be not a ufficient ground In the result, we find that both these cases filed by Kulveer Singh and Kotak Mahindra Bank, are barred by time. 9. Moreover, their case on the merits as well, is without merit. It is difficult to fathom as to why Kotak Mahindra Bank has filed this revision petition. No claim was ever granted against it and it was never made liable to pay the amount in dispute. Is it working in cahoots with the complainant, in order to safeguard its own interest?. 10. Now, the case of Kulveer Singh wallows in suspicion and doubts. His driver, Gurpreet Singh, swings and oscillates from Dan to Beersheba. He took diverse and conflicting stands. His version, as it appears in the FIR is reproduced as under. e submitted that his Cleaner Shyam Sunder, S/o Marik Singh was with him at the spot. He parked the vehicle on G.T. Road, Opp. Delhi-Panipat Road Tax Office and his Cleaner went to ask the address of the Factory. Since his Cleaner did not turn up, therefore, he stopped the engine and went to search the Cleaner, leaving the key in the vehicle. He did not lock the vehicle. After about 10-15 minutes when they came back to the spot, the vehicle was not to be found there. Some unknown persons had stolen his vehicle and he requested the Police to take action against the culprits 11. However, this version changes when the complaint was filed. Para No.4 of the complaint is reproduced as under : hat in the last week of July, 2007 the said vehicle of the complainant was taken by his driver Gurpreet Singh for Jodhpur-Mumbai-Delhi and went on dated 01.08.2007 for loading goods to Kundli Mall at Delhi border, then on Delhi Panipat GT Road in the night at about 10.00PM stopped the truck and after locking driver and cleaner Ram Singh went to nearby dhaba for taking tea and after 15-20 minutes they returned on the place where vehicle was parked they were shocked because vehicle was not there and someone stolen it. Then driver of complainant who is illiterate with khalasi made efforts to search vehicle and inquired from nearby people and dhabawala but vehicle not found then FIR was lodged in Kundli Police Station on dated 02.08.2008 which is Ex.3 12. There is the report of the Surveyor, conducted by rivate Eye Investigations dated 24.10.2007. It gives yet a third version. Its relevant paras, run as follows:- 7. Cleaner Shyam Sunder also works with him as cleaner whom he sent to find factory address. 08. He had parked captioned truck Kundli Border. 09. He waited for cleaner for 15 to 20 minutes. But cleaner did not come. 10. In order to search cleaner, he closed the doors of captioned truck but due to hurry could not lock doors. He left door key inside truck and ignition keys with him and left to search cleaner. 11. After 15-20 minutes when he came back after searching the cleaner, he could not find the vehicle 13. The learned counsel appearing for Kulveer Singh and Kotak Mahindra, made two submissions. Firstly, that FIR was wrongly recorded. This fact was brought to the notice of the Police, but the Police informed them that any changes cannot be made in the FIR. It was explained that the real situation was that the vehicle was locked. Secondly, it was submitted that the FIR was not properly proved. 14. The counsel have raised these objections merely for the sake of cavil. It must be borne in mind that the FIR was placed on the record by Kulveer Singh himself. He cannot now change his stand and find fault with the FIR. In the absence of any adverse evidence to the contrary, it has to be presumed that the FIR was correctly written and there is no record to show that an application was filed either before the District Forum or the Police. It goes beyond the pale of our comprehension as to why the Police would record a wrong statement. In view of the contradictions created by the complainant himself, it is difficult to gauge the real position. 15. Consequently, it stands proved that the Truck Driver was wee bit negligent. The order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. No ground for enhancement of insurance amount stands made out. 16. Now, we turn to the case of Oriental Insurance Company (RP 1881/2011). The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the ut and ben stand, set up by the Driver of the Truck, fully establishes negligence on his part, beyond reasonable doubt. He did not take proper/ sufficient/ reasonable care of the vehicle as a prudent and vigilant man should have done. This is a clear-cut violation of Condition No. 5 of the Policy, and as such, the Complainant is entitled to othing 17. Condition No. 5 of the Insurance policy runs, as follows:- he insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precaution being taken to prevent further damage or lo and if the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured own risk 18. However, the District Forum has referred to an authority of the Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 CTJ (CP) 680 wherein it was held that violation of the terms of the policy of insurance is not relevant in the case of theft of vehicle. The Apex Court was pleased to observe :- 3. In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft 19. In our considered view, no interference with the order of the State Commission is called for. We are unable to take a different view from the one taken by the State Commission in fastening that much liability upon the Insurance Company. All the three Revision Petitions are accordingly, dismissed.