In the case of –“New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs Trilochan Jane (First appeal no. 321 pf 2005), the honorable National Commission held:-

  Learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nitin Khandelwal reported in (2008) 11 SCC 256 contended that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The said judgment was in a totally different context. In the said case, the plea taken by the insurance Company was that the vehicle though insured for personal use was being used as a taxi in violation of terms in the policy.  The Plea raised by the Insurance Company was rejected and it was observed that in the case of theft breach of condition is not germane.  In the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the Insurance Company about the theft for a period of 9 days, which could be fatal to the investigation.  The Delay in lodging the FIR after 2 days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the insurance company, can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to kabaadi  (Scrap Dealer).

 Coming to the facts ofv the case in hand, it may be stated that the complainant is the registered owner of a Tractor Bearing registration no. HR-B-0712.  He had purchased a policy of insurance from the OP in respect of the aforesaid tractor which was valid for the period 6.10.2009 to 5.10.2010.  It is alleged that the aforesaid tractor was stolen on 9.10.2010 and an FIR was lodged with the police who could not traced out the vehicle and had filed an untraced report. The claim lodged by the complainant however, was repudiated by the OP which led to the filing of the present complaint.

             The OP has contested the complaint and has denied any deficiency in service. It has claimed that the complainant was himself guilty of non-cooperation and had failed to respond to the letters written by  it.  It has also claimed that the complaint is without merits and is liable to be dismissed. It has prayed accordingly.

            We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

            It is admitted by the complainant that the FIR in respect of the theft was lodged with the police on 24.3.2010.  i.e. after a delay of more than two months. The intimation I writing to the insurance company about the loss was given on 9.5.2010 i.e. after a delay of four months.  In view of the judgments cited by us above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP was justified in repudiating the claim lodged by te complainant. We see no merits inthis complaint the same is hereby dismissed.