Per Mr. Vinay Kumar, Member The matter in this revision petition arises from theft of a truck on 12.02.2008. The vehicle was of 2007 make and insured from 7.6.2007. It could not be traced by the Police and therefore, a claim was lodged with the insurer. It was not paid on the ground that a criminal case was pending in the matter. The purchaser of the truck filed a consumer complaint against the insurer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (O.P. No.1) and the financing agency, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. (O.P. No.2). O.P.1 contested the claim, while O.P.2 remained ex-parte before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Lakhimpur Kheeri. District Forum allowed the complaint. 2. The appeal of O.P.2 / present revision petitioner, has been dismissed by U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 2056/2010 on the ground of limitation, with the observation: hus, the appellant has not given any appropriate and satisfactory reason or evidence for condonation of delay as per the principles laid down by the Honle Courts with regard to the issue in question. Under such circumstances, the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed prior to consider it on merits and there is no need to interfere with the order of the District Forum. 3. The District Forum has gone into the facts and evidence on record at great length and observed: n the instant matter both the parties admitted the fact of stealing of the vehicle and also the insurance of the vehicle which is completely established fact. The recovery of the stolen vehicle has not been made as yet. This fact has also not been contradicted by the Insurance Company. They have only expressed the possibility of recovery of vehicle. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the insurance claim of the complainant should have been settled within 90 days. The O.P. Insurance Company has exhibited deficiency in service by not fulfilling this provision. Due to the non-payment of amount by the O.P. Insurance Company the interest component has been piling against the complainant. In this context the complainant also submitted Memorandums of the O.P. Insurance Company but neither the O.P. made payment of the claim nor gave any reply. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party expressed concern only about the complicity of the matter and the possibility of recovery of vehicle. In the opinion of the Forum, there is no complicity in the instant matter. The matter relates to the theft of the vehicle which has not been recovered till date. For insurance claim the only mandatory requirement is the evidence of theft which is available on record. No report of its Surveyor / Investigator has been submitted by the Insurance Company before the Forum and it is only unnecessarily delaying the settlement of the insurance claim. 4. The record submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner is perused and Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate has been heard on behalf of the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. The main ground of challenge to the impugned order is that it was a fit case for condonation of delay of three months and the State Commission should have gone into the merits of the case of the insurance company. We find from the record that while the theft took place on 12.2.2008, the criminal case before the Judicial Magistrate came up for consideration only on 13.4.2009. There is nothing to show that the vehicle had been recovered in this interregnum of 14 months. Therefore, its actual recovery at a subsequent date is nothing more than a theoretical possibility. Before the District Forum, O.P.1 tried to justify non-settlement of the claim. It was pleaded in the Written Submissions that: hat it appeared from the perusal of all the documents that the said act of stealing was not done by the thieves but was a loot and in this regard it also appeared from the Police documents that the said vehicle was sold in Siliguri and the Lakhimpur Police has recovered about two lakh rupees in this regard and also arrested few accused persons. That the complainant filed a theft report in this regard in Police Station, Lakhimpur and its F.I.R. No. 284/2008 being a criminal case is pending in the C.J.M. Lakhimpur Khiri and the vehicle can also be recovered during the pendency of case. Therefore, under such circumstances, the claim of the complainant is not payable 5. This contention has rightly been rejected by the District Forum. Further, this Commission has not been informed about any rule/regulation which requires the insured to wait till the conclusion of criminal proceedings. On the other hand the rules do require an insurer to settle the claim within 90 days. The District Forum has also mentioned that no material was placed on record to show that the complainant had been given any assessment / recommendation made in the matter by any surveyor appointed by the RP/OP 1. We therefore find full justification in the decision of the District Forum on the merits of the claim. 6. Coming to the question of dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation, we do not find any justification for the claim that it was wrong for the State Commission to refuse condonation of the delay. The State Commission has relied upon the decision of Honle Supreme Court of India in Anshul Agarwal Versus New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 653 (SC). It has been held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, it needs to be kept in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters. The object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer fora are entertained. 7. In view of the above we find no merit in this revision petition. It is consequently dismissed. No orders as to costs.