ORDER
PER NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

The complainant  is the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Tavera ,
Model 2009 bearing registration number UP 14 AT 8893.  The complainant
got insured the above said vehicle with OP 1 vide policy no.
360804/31/10/6300000818 for the period from 05/05/2010 -4/5/2011 for
the IDV of Rs. 5,16,203/-.
It is alleged by the complainant that on intervening night of 1/2
Sept 2010, the aforesaid vehicle was stolen from May Fair Apartment,
Chander Vihar, Delhi.  The complainant reported the theft of the
vehicle to the police on 2-9-2010 and accordingly the police
registered an FIR no. 465/2009 dt. 4-9-2010.  The complainant also
informed immediately to OP no. 1 about the theft of the aforesaid
vehicle and the officer of the OP company asked the complainant to
submit the copy of RC, FIR, Insurance Policy, Permit and driving
license with them.
It is alleged by the complainant that the officer of the OP company
also informed him that there is no time limit as such to file the
claim.  Accordingly, the complainant submitted all aforesaid documents
alongwith claim form to the OP company on 20-9-2010.  It is further
alleged by the complainant that he received a letter dated 16-12-2011
from the OP vide which OP informed the complainant that as he had
intimated the company    about the theft on 20-9-2010 i.e. after 18
days of the incident, hence his claim is being treated on “Non
–Standard basis” and 25% shall be deducted from the claim amount.
The complainant vide letter dated 17-01-2012 clarified to the OP
company that there is no delay on his part in informing it about the
theft but the OP company instead of hearing  him, sent another letter
dated 12-03-2012 vide which it threatened the complainant either to
give his written consent of 25 % deduction of the claim amount or they
will close his claim  as “ No Claim”. Hence, this complaint.
The OP has contested the complaint.  The defence of the OP is
contained in Paras 11, 12 which has been reproduced as under:-
11. That the contents of Para No. 11 of the complaint are not denied
to the extent as it relates to the letters dated 16.12.2011 and
14.02.2011, sent by the Respondent. However, rest of the contents of
para under reply are wrong and denied. it is submitted that the
Insurance Co. according to their terms and Conditions and well settled
law laid down by the Hon’ble Court, the claim of the Complainant
Considered as “Non Standard” by the competent authority due to the
violation of the Condition No.1 of the poliCy according to which the
25% shall be deducted from the claim amount, because of delay of 18
days in intimation to the Opposite Party.
12. That the contents of Para No. 12 of the complaint are not denied
to the extent as it relates to the condicion No. 1 of the policy.
However, rest of the contents of para under reply are wrong and
denied. It is submitted that the claim of the complainant is rightly
settled by the insurance company on “Non Standard” basis as per the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the Complainant
intentionally delayed in lodging of the claim with the Opposite Party.
It is submitted that the timely intimation about the theft of the
insured vehicle could have contributed to chances of recovery of
stolen vehicle by the investigator, who in such like cases appointed
immediately on receipt of intimation of theft and co-ordinate the
efforts of the local police.

 Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The counsel for the OP has contended that there is no deficiency on
the part of the OP, as the OP was always ready to settle the claim of
the complainant on non-standard basis and that it is the complainant
who has not given his consent as well as the required documents to the
OP company to process the claim and had rather directly knocked at the
door of this forum.
    We agree with the contention of the counsel for the OP. A bare
perusal of the documents placed on record by the parties shows that
the  complainant had informed the OP company about the alleged theft
in writing on 20-9-2010 i.e. after a period of 18 days. Admittedly,
there is a delay on the part of the complainant to inform the OP
company about the alleged theft. The OP company vide letter dated
16-12-2011 offered the complainant to settle his claim on non-standard
basis by deducting 25 % from the claim amount.  It was the complainant
who had not agreed to the settlement.  Since there was a  delay on the
part of the complainant in informing the insurance company in writing
about the theft  and consequently there was a contravention of the
terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, the OP was justified
in settling the claim on non-standard basis. (See National Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs Nitin KhandelwalCivil Appeal No.3409 of 2008  decided by
Hon’ble Supreme Court).
  We, therefore, hold that there was no deficiency in service on the
part of the OP insurance company.
The OP insurance company is directed to release the settled amount
(i.e. 75% of the IDV )within 15 days of the complaint fulfilling the
requisite formalities of the transfer of the vehicle.     The
complaint is accordingly disposed off.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File
be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................