JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. -2- 2. There is delay of 15 days in filing the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing revision petition. The delay has been explained that the petitioner took the advice and sent the case to Ms. Suman Bagga, the present counsel to file this complaint. It is stated that some papers were in Marathi language and its English translation was not available. Consequently, the above said delay occurred. 3. We are satisfied that there is sufficient ground to condone the delay of 15 days. The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned. 4. The vehicle belonging to the complainant/Mukund Triambak Kapre met with an accident on 9.12.2007. The complainant preferred the claim on 4.1.2008 i.e. after expiry of 25 days. No explanation is forthcoming for the said delay. It is true that FIR was lodged immediately after the accident. However, it was bounden duty of the driver or the owner to inform the insurance company immediately about the accident. The Surveyor was appointed after the accident. The vehicle had already been repaired. The Supreme Court of India in the theft case i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha- Civil -3- Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010, made the relevant observation which runs as follows: “Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform the theft of the vehicle immediately after the -4- incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.” 5. The same ratio will be applicable to this case as well. We find considerable force in the argument urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that they cannot say what happened between 9.12.2007 and 4.1.2008. The second submission made by her is that the driver may be under intoxication or his licence was not examined at the proper time etc. The complainant should have known that without the surveyor’s report, he could not get the vehicle repaired. First of all, the surveyor has to find out what does and how much the vehicle need repair at that time. The complainant must get the estimate from the workshop based -5- on the surveyor’s report and only then the compensation is to be paid to the complainant. 6. Condition No. 1 of the policy reveals that ‘notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information as the company shall require’. The needful could not be done. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The orders passed by fora below are not legally tenable. Therefore, the same are set aside. We accept the revision petition and dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount from the fora below after the expiry of 45 days. | 
