We are heard both the counsel for the parties. The facts of this case are these- Vikram Singh complainant is the registered owner of Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero Jeep, Model 2007. The said vehicle was stolen on 28.09.2009. The vehicle was already insured for the period 24.09.2008 to 23.09.2009. This is an admitted fact that an FIR was lodged with the police immediately on the same date. However this is also an admitted fact that the insurance company was informed after inordinate delay of 49 days. Both the foras below have dismissed the complaint as well as the first appeal. 2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He has invited our attention towards the condition no.1 of the policy which runs as follows: otice shall be given in writing to the company upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately after the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. n case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender 3. The counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis upon the portion underlined above. He contended that it was not necessary for the complainant to inform the insurance company immediately but he was required to lodge the FIR immediately. He further explains that the State Commission placed reliance upon the authority titled as ew India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane which has got no application to this case. 4. However these arguments have left no impression upon us. The counsel for the respondent has cited an authority reported as ohammadali Liyakatali Pathan Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltdin Revision Petition No. 3183 of 2011 decided on 12.07.2012 decided by bench headed by Honle Justice Ashok Bhan in which it was held :- e 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 riental 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 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: dmittedly 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 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. 4. We are of the same view as that taken by the bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhan in ew India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane (Supra)in Revision Petition No. 2951/2011. This petition has no ground, the same is dismissed.