Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant being owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-14N-0959 has purchased the insurance policy from the OP. covering the period from 31.11.2010 to 29.11.2011. It is alleged inter alia that on 26.12.2012  the vehicle was stolen away by the driver of the vehicle. The matter was reported to the Biramitrapur Police Station on 6.1.2011. Thereafter, on 13.1.2011 the matter was reported to the insurer – OP. The OP repudiated the claim by observing that as per policy condition the theft of the vehicle was not intimated within 48 hours of the occurrence. So the complaint was filed.

4.      OP filed written version stating that on 26.12.2012 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen away by the driver of the vehicle and the matter was reported to the police on 6.1.2011 in much delay. Since the matter was reported to the police and the insurer beyond 48 hours of the occurrence, they repudiated the claim. So, there is no any deficiency in service on their part.

5.      After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                    “xxx   xxx   xxx

In view of our observation made above, the complaint is partly allowed. The OP Insurance Company is directed to settle the claim of the complainant as non-standard basis within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Accordingly the case is disposed of.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  the learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him the complainant informed the insurer and the police after 48 hours of occurrence but not immediately. Learned District Forum ought to have considered such fact. He also submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      We have gone through the insurance policy and found that the vehicle has no any policy covering the theft of the same. It  basically covers the accident only. In fact the learned District Forum has observed the same fact in the impugned order. Once the policy does not cover the theft, the claim for theft is not maintainable. Even if assuming that for the argument sake the claim for theft would be considered by the insurer, but the fact remains that there is delay in informing the police and the insurer. According to the decision of  Gurushindr Singh vrs. Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd AIR 2020 SC Page 1395 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of theft the occurrence of theft either to be informed to the police or the insurer immediately. Even if the insurer’s contention is considered to report within 48 hours but that has not been complied. In either way, we are of the view that the claim is liable to be repudiated and it has rightly been repudiated may be on any other ground. Therefore, we do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is set aside.

9.      The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.