Petitioner/complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum with the averment that he purchased a Mahendra Balero LX vehicle and got it insured with the respondent insurance company for a sum of Rs.5,18,700/-.  It had temporary registration number which was valid upto 29.10.2006.  Permanent registration number was not obtained.  The vehicle was stolen on the night intervening 4/5.11.2006 from the shop of the petitioner.  FIR was lodged with Police Station Jhajjar on 05.11.2006 without giving chasis and engine

-2-

number.  Only temporary registration number had been given which had already expired on 29.10.2006.  The police filed an ‘Untraceable’ report.  Claim was lodged with the insurance company.  According to the petitioner, it had informed the respondent insurance company about the theft of the vehicle on 08.11.2006. 

On issuance of notice, respondent put in appearance and took the stand that the complainant/petitioner had not come with clean hands and had suppressed the true and material facts.  It was averred that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that the vehicle was stolen on 4.11.2006 at 11 p.m. and the FIR was lodged on 05.11.2006 at 12:30 p.m. without explaining the unnecessary delay; that the complainant had intimated the respondent regarding the loss of the vehicle only on 13.12.2006; that the temporary registration number had expired on 29.10.2006 and at the time of theft, the vehicle was not registered which was violation of provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  As per Section 39, registration of the vehicle is mandatory for its use.  The vehicle could not be plied without registration. 

-3-

District Forum on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner had intimated the respondent about the theft on 13.12.2006 after a delay of 38 days; that the vehicle was being used without getting it registered, in violation of Section 39 of the Act ; that in the FIR lodged by the petitioner, the chasis number and the engine number had not been given, in the absence of which the vehicle could not be traced.  The complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed.  The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum holding that it was not a fit case to interfere with the order passed by District Forum.

Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that he had informed the respondent about the theft of the vehicle on 08.11.2006 and received the acknowledgement due receipt.  We have gone through the complaint filed by the petitioner.  In the complaint, it is not mentioned that the petitioner had intimated the respondent insurance company

-4-

about the theft of the vehicle on 08.11.2006.  It is also not mentioned in the complaint that the registered letter has been sent by the petitioner on 08.11.2006.  Written Statement filed by the respondent has not been placed on record in which the respondent had clearly stated that they were intimated about the theft of the vehicle on 13.12.2006.  Finding recorded by the fora below that the respondent was informed about the theft of the vehicle after 38 days, is a finding of fact which the petitioner has not been able to displace by leading any cogent evidence.  In the complaint, petitioner did not mention about the intimation sent to the respondent either through ordinary post or through a registered letter.  The plea now being taken that the intimation had been sent on 08.11.2006, is clearly an afterthought.  The temporary registration number given had expired on 29.10.2006 and the vehicle was stolen on 04.11.2006.  The vehicle was being plied without obtaining the registration number, temporary or permanent which was clearly in violation of provisions of Section 39 of the M.V. Act.  Petitioner is supposed to inform the respondent about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.                    The information was given after 38 days which deprived the

-5-

respondent of a chance to investigate regarding the theft of the vehicle. 

Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Supreme Court of India in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal, (2008) 11 SCC 259”, in which it has been held that in the case of theft, breech of condition of policy is not germane.  Present is not a case of breech of condition of the policy.  Present is the case of breech of conditions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  Moreover, the petitioner did not inform the respondent insurance company about the theft of the vehicle which has deprived of the respondent of the fair opportunity to investigate and verify regarding the theft of the vehicle. 

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any substance in this revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.