The matter was passed over. 2. Though nobody is present on behalf of petitioner, we have heard learned counsel for the respondent. 3. On the first date of hearing i.e. on 19.9.2012, this Commission has passed the following order; ne of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company is that the claim of the insured could not be settled even on non-standard basis because there was a clear breach of certain terms and conditions of the insurance policy, i.e. it was obligatory to the insured to intimate the insurer about the loss of the vehicle on account of theft or accident immediately after the peril. He submits that in the case in hand no intimation of any kind was given to the petitioner-Insurance Company either immediately after the theft of the vehicle or any time uptill the filing of the complaint before the District Forum and the petitioner-Insurance Company learnt about the peril only on receipt of the notice on the complaint, which was filed after about six months of the peril. 4. vehicle of the respondent/complainant was insured with the Petitioner-Insurance Company. It is an admitted fact that respondent did not inform the Petitioner Company about theft of the vehicle. 5. State Commission in its impugned order has observed that; here appears to be some delay in informing the Insurance Company with regard to the theft of the vehicle 6. However, it has nowhere stated as to when the Petitioner Company was informed about the theft by the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for respondent has contended that, as per averments made in the complaint, information was given to the Insurance Company after 10 days of the theft of vehicle. Further, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the State Commission rightly allowed the respondent claim on non standard basis in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ational Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC). 8. There is no documentary evidence at all on record to this effect as to when respondent informed the Petitioner Company about theft of the vehicle. In the absence of any intimation given by the respondent to the Petitioner Company, it is manifestly clear that there has been violation of the mandatory conditions of the insurance policy. 9. On this point, it would be relevant to quote the following observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in uraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, reported in IV (2010) CPJ 38 (S C); -4- hat in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. 10. Since, there has been violation of mandatory conditions of the insurance policy in this case by not informing the Petitioner Company about the theft of the vehicle, the impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained. Moreover, decision of Nitin Khandelwal (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and allow the present revision petition with the result, the complaint filed by the respondent stand dismissed. 12. No order as to costs.