PER JUSTICE J.M.MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner present.  There is a delay of 18 days in filing this Revision Petition.  Arguments heard.  In the interest of justice, delay is hereby condoned as per submissions made in the application for condonation of delay. 

2.      Let us turn to the merits of this case.  The vehicle was stolen on 01.10.2008.  The FIR was lodged on 07.10.2008 and the information was given to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. –OP on 18.10.2008.  It is thus clear that the FIR was delayed by seven days and information was given to the OP after 18 days.  This delay is fatal as it deprived the Oriental Insurance Company of its legitimate right to enquire into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same.  Supreme Court of India in “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha-Civil Appeal No. 6739/2010 decided on 17.08.2010” was pleased to observe:-

 “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 it about 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 endeavour 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.”

3.      As per this authority the Opposite Party cannot be saddled with any kind of liability.

4.      Similar view was taken by the Bench of this Commission headed by  Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhan in the case titled as “Mohammadali Liyakatali pathan versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.” in Revision Petition No. 3183 of 2011, decided on 12.07.2012.

5.      In another case again headed by the Bench of Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhan “New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane” in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009, took the same view and it was held that “National Insurance Company Limited v. Nitin Khandelwal reported in (2008) 11 SCC 256” was not applicable under the circumstances.

6.      Consequently, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. 

7.      At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of this Commission in the case of “Baljeet Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. in Revision Petition No. 454 of 2013”, decided on 02.12.2013, decided by the Bench headed by Justice Ajit Bharihoke, wherein the order passed by the District Forum, Hisar based on “Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. CPJ 2010 (II)” was upheld. 

8.      We are of the considered view that “Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (supra)” is not applicable in this case.  We cannot take view contrary to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order has to prevail, so the Revision Petition is dismissed.