This revision petition has been filed by the complainant.

          During the currency of the vehicle insurance policy, the truck of the petitioner was taken away by his driver on 17.10.2007.  Petitioner lodged complaint with Pipri Police Station on 14.11.2007.  Petitioner

-2-

filed the claim with the insurance company on 16.09.2008 i.e. after a delay of 11 months.  Respondent insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground of ‘Delayed Information’.  Being aggrieved petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.11,87,500/- for the loss of the vehicle, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as costs.  Interest was claimed @ 12% p.a.  

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission.

          State Commission has dismissed the appeal by observing thus:

          “Considering all the above facts, it is certain that the incidence of the theft took place on 17.10.07 and the first information was given to the Insurance company on 10.03.09 i.e. after 11 months.  Complainant has not given any clarification for late information even though he got the opportunity.  There is nothing on record to prove satisfactorily that the information was given on toll free number.  Over and above, if we consider custody period of the complainant from 14.11.07 to 15.2.08 and there is sufficient cause for not giving information in time.  Then also after the custody period from 17.10.07 to 13.11.07 and 15.2.08 to 16.8.08 the complainant ought to have informed as early as possible which is not done

-3-

by him.  And for information on toll free number, there is nothing satisfactory on record.  In this eventuality, Ld. Forum’s decision that there is a delay of 11 months in giving information is genuine and valid.  The said decision is substantiated in the judgment of State Commission in appeal no.1424/09 dt.8.7.10.  The said judgment is given by the State Commission based on Hon’ble National Commission’s judgment.  In this situation, we firmly believe that the above point is squarely covered.”

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Delay in informing the insurance company was fatal as it deprived the insurance company of its legitimate right to enquire into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeveaour to recover the same.  Supreme Court of India in “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha – Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010, dismissed the complaint holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance company, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.  Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same; that the insurance company

-4-

could not be settled with the liability to pay compensation to the insured despite the fact that he had 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

-5-

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.”

          As the order passed by the State Commission is in line with the view taken by the Supreme Court, no ground for interference is made out.  Revision petition stands dismissed.