ORDER JUSTICE J.M.MALIK 1. The moot question which falls for consideration is hether in a theft case, the delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and delay in giving information to the Insurance Company is fatal? The facts leading to filing of this revision petition are as follows. Attar Singh and Raj Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Saidpur, District Sonepat, Haryana, purchased a tractor in the year 2007. They obtained insurance policy from Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, the opposite party covering the period from 17.05.2009 to 16.05.2010 for an assured sum of Rs.4,80,000/-. On 18.05.2009, the above said tractor was stolen from the area of Village Sothi, PS Kharkhoda, District Sonepat, Haryana. FIR was lodged on 15.06.2009 with the Police Station, i.e. after a delay of 27 days from the commission of the theft. The information was sent to the respondent, Insurance Company about the theft, with delay of 283 days. The claim made by the petitioner was repudiated. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum which allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to make the payment of Rs.4,71,200/-, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft of the tractor and to pay Rs.2,000/- each, as compensation and as litigation expenses. 3. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission condoned the delay of 152 daysin filing the appeal, accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint. 4. Aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainants/petitioners herein have filed this revision petition, with a delay of 2 days, as reported by the Registry, for which no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioners, as according to them the present revision petition has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days as submitted by them in Para 7 of their revision petition. Be that as it may, the delay if any, is hereby condoned. 5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. He vehemently argued that the police report was lodged immediately but the police put it off on the pretext that they were searching for the tractor. They did not lodge the FIR earlier, in the hope that the tractor would be recovered. The learned counsel for the petitioner also explained that they had informed the agent of the insurance company regarding the theft. It was contended that under these circumstances, the above said delay, if any, should be condoned and the order passed by the State Commission should be restored. 6. We clap no importance with the above said arguments. The counsel for the petitioner admitted that his above said story is based on oral discussions only. He could not produce the documents in support of his case. He admitted that police had orally told them that they would recover the tractor. Again they had orally informed the agent of the insurance company regarding the theft. The name of the agent was also not disclosed. Under these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on such like versions. The complainants/petitioners have failed to produce cogent and plausible evidence which may go to embolden their case. 7. On the contrary, we find that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, clause (1), the petitioners were required to intimate the insurance company immediately about the theft. However, the needful was not done. The learned State Commission has rightly placed reliance on this Commission judgment in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005, titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, decided on 09.12.2009. In this case, the information to the insurance Company was given after about nine days, and, information to the police was given after about two days. It was held in the said judgment that the delay in loding the FIR, after two daysafter coming to know of the theft and nine daysafter the occurrence of the theft, to the insurance company, can be fatal, as, in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to scrap dealer. 8. Consequently, we find that the State Commission is plumb right in holding that the complainants are not entitled to have the claim and therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.