Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The case  of the complainant, in nutshell  is that  the complainant  being  the owner of  the vehicle (Tipper) bearing Regd.No.OR-14U-1597 had  purchased the policy for the vehicle from the OP covering the period from 19.02.2011 to 18.02.2012. During  currency of the  policy the vehicle was stolen away on 21.01.2012. The police and the insurer were informed 13-16 days after the occurrence respectively. But the OP repudiated the claim  as per their  sweet will. Challenging such repudiation, the complaint was filed.

4.      The OP  made investigation and found that  the policy condition with regard to clause-1 has been violated for not lodging  the FIR immediately  after the occurrence. Learned District Forum passed the order in favour of the complainant directing OP to pay  75 %   of the total amount  of claim on non-standard basis.  Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

5.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “ There is no complicity in instant matter. Matter relates to theft of vehicle which has not been recovered  till date. For insurance claim only mandatory requirement is evidence of theft which is available in record. There is nothing to show that there is any chance of recovery of the insured vehicle. The Insurance claim of the complainant should have been settled or repudiated within 90 days but the OP-Insurance Company has repudiated the claim after one year and eight months from the date of theft. The OP-Insurance Company has exhibited  deficiency in service by not  fulfilling this provision. In view of the settled law, the Authority by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd.-Vrs- Nitin Khandelwal,2008 CTJ 680 (SC) (CP), the Insurance Company can not repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft and the OP-Insurance Company should  have settled the claim on non-standard basis even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the  policy. The complainant is entitled to get insurance claim on “non-standard basis” i.e. 75% of the total claim as repudiation of whole claim is illegal. We therefore, allowed the complaint in part and directed the OP-Insurance Company to settle the claim on non-standard basis( i.e. 75 % of the total claim) of the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

          The complaint is accordingly disposed of.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version filed by OP with proper perspectives. According to him   learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in this case.  Therefore,  he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside  by allowing the appeal.

7.                      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted there  is correct decision passed by the learned District Forum and he supports the impugned order.

8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective counsels, perused the DFR and impugned order .

9.                   No doubt the vehicle  was stolen away during currency of the policy. It is admitted fact that  the stolen of the vehicle was reported to the police  and the insurer after 16 days of the occurrence.  It is reported in  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurshinder Singh-Vrs- Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. &another ,vide Civil Appeal No.653(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.24370/2015 decided on 24.01.2020 Where Their Lordship observed that the FIR should be lodged immediately after the occurrence to show the  compliance of the policy condition, failing which  the claim can not be admitted. In this case also the delay has not been explained properly.

10.              In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Gurshinder Singh (Supra), there  is violation of policy condition with regard   to  delay for informing insurer and police without same being explained.

11.             Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. Hence, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.               

                Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                DFR be sent back forthwith.