Complainant/petitioner got his Maruti Zen car insured from the respondent insurance company for the period from 28.10.2003 to 27.10.2004.  On 19.12.2003, the said vehicle was allegedly stolen and an FIR was lodged to that effect.  According to the petitioner, he had informed the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle, but the insurance company failed to settle the claim.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on 30.1.2004.  

-2-

Before the District Forum, the respondent insurance company took the stand that the petitioner had never informed it about the theft of the car and it came to know about this fact only after receipt of the notice in the complaint; that it had been denied the opportunity to investigate the matter regarding the authencity of the theft of the vehicle.

Except for the filing of the affidavit by the petitioner and the respondent, no other evidence was led before the District Forum.  Police submitted ‘Untraced’ report.  The District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence which was led before it, held that the respondent after its appearance on 11.3.2004 i.e. after acquiring the knowledge about the theft of the car, filed its reply on 12.8.2005 and during all this period of 18 months, respondent did not appoint the Surveyor to ascertain the fact of theft of the vehicle; that the respondent was deficient in service.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the insured amount after deducting 5% towards depreciation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

-3-

Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission has reversed the order of the District Forum and held that the respondent could not be held guilty of negligence or deficiency in service attributed to it in settling the claim; that the complainant himself failed to inform the respondent about the theft of the vehicle with some ulterior motive.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Under the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority Act, 1999 the insured is required to inform the insurance company about the damage/theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.  In the present case, we find from the record that the petitioner did not intimate the insurance company about the theft immediately after lodging the FIR and filed the complaint within a period of 40 days.  This deprived the insurance company of an opportunity to             investigate the matter to ascertain the truth regarding the theft of the

-4-

vehicle.  No merits.  Dismissed.  No costs.