During the currency of the vehicle insurance policy obtained by the appellant, the vehicle was stolen on 21.3.2009.  FIR was lodged about the theft on 25.3.2009 and the respondent insurance company was informed about the theft of the vehicle on 30.3.2009.  Claim lodged by the appellant was repudiated on the ground that delay in intimating about the theft of the vehicle deprived the insurance company of its right to investigate about the theft as well as to trace the vehicle.

        State Commission dismissed the complaint relying upon the judgement of this Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane  - F.A. No.321/2005 decided on 9.12.2009.

View taken by the State Commission is in line with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha – Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010, wherein under the similar circumstances, Supreme Court has held that as per the terms of the policy, the insured is duty bound to inform the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.  Failure to intimate immediately deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft and make an endeavour to recover the same.  The delay in lodging the claim was fatal and the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the respondent, as the respondent had not complied with the terms of the policy.  Relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court reads 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 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.”

        Since the view taken by the fora below is in line with the view taken by the Supreme Court in Parvesh Chander Chadha’s case (supra), we do not find any substance in this revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.