This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan dated 24.3.2017 in consumer complaint No.s115/2016 whereby the State Commission dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the appellant in limine. Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under:-

“It has also been alleged that oral information was given to the insurance company but to support this contention no document has been submitted. Hence, the admitted facts in the complaint are that the report was lodged to the police after three days of incident and insurance company was informed much later on 1.3.2014. Hence, in view of delay the policy conditions have not been complied with and the complaint is liable to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the apex court in Civil Appeal No.6739/2010; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha wherein it has been specifically held that when terms of the policy has not been complied with, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation.”

          Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4836 while confronted with the similar issue has observed as under: -

          “It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims  8which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.”

          On reading of the above, it is clear that the insurance company is not supposed to dismiss the genuine claims of the consumers on technical grounds like delay in reporting the theft to the police or the insurance company. If the complainant is able explain the delay, in such event the insurance company is supposed to settle the claim. The State Commission has failed to take note of the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission to decide the complaint in accordance with law after following the due process. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 13.7.2018.

          Order dasti.