Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

2.      Shri Moninder Mittal petitioner/complainant was owner of prime mover No.KA-05-AB-1838 which was insured with the respondent for a total IDV Rs.16 Lakhs. According to the petitioner he entrusted said vehicle to his employee driver Syed Mehboob on 25^th September, 2010. The said driver on his way to Tada Patri on Ananthpur-Bellary road disconnected empty bulker from the prime mover and after abandoning the bulker he drove away with the prime mover of the vehicle. The aforesaid act of the driver was intimated to the petitioner by one of the employees on 26^th September, 2010. The criminal breach of trust was reported to the police vide FIR No.126/2010 under Section 408 IPC at police station Ananthpur. The petitioner lodged insurance claim in December, 2010 after the police filed the untraced report. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that in violation of the specific condition in the insurance contract intimation of the theft of truck was not given to them within stipulated period of 48 hours. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the insurance claim the petitioner filed a consumer complaint.

3.      The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission.

4.      The State Commission placing reliance upon the judgment of the National Commission reported in III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC) and III (2006) CPJ 240 (NC) dismissed the appeal. This has led to filing of the revision petition. Learned counsel has drawn out attention to one circular dated 20^th September, 2011 issued by RDA to all insurers and non-life insurers which reads thus:

“The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurer for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, proviionin, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlemetn of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.

The insurers’ decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such limitatin clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits nad good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policyholders confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation. “

5.      It is contended that intimation of theft of truck was not given to the respondent because the petitioner was under the impression that it was supposed to be given after un-trace report is filed by the police. Thus, it is urged that the impugned orders be set aside and the claim of the complainant be allowed.

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He has contended that there is a specific condition in the insurance contract which stipulates that claim of theft of vehicle is not payable if the theft is not reported to the insurance company within 48 hours of its occurrence. Learned counsel contended that admittedly the petitioner came to know about the theft of truck by the driver on 25^th September, 2010 but the intimation of theft was given vide claim dated 21.12.2010. Therefore, the respondent was well within its rights to repudiate the claim. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010 as also the judgment in the matter of Dharambir vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in RP No.1542 of 2012 decided on 10.10.2013 and in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009.

7.      We have considered the rival contentions. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra) dismissed the complaint holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance policy, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the accident. Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endavour to recover the same. It was further held that the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the insured despite the fact that he has not complied with the terms of the policy. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court read as under:

“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 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.”

8.      The said judgment has been followed by coordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of Dharambir vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). From this it is evident that the issue raised in this revision petition is no more res integra. Admittedly the intimation of theft was not given to the insurance company within the stipulated period of 48 hrs. detailed in the policy. Thus, finding of the Fora below that repudiation of the claim by the respondent on the ground of violation of terms of insurance contract is justified, cannot be faulted.

9.      In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Foras below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.