This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ramniwas  against the order dated 24.4.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.108/2017 dismissing the appeal against the order dated 12.01.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagur (in short ‘the District Forum’) passed in Complaint No.132 of 2016.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2015 the theft had taken place of the vehicle of petitioner and the FIR was lodged by the petitioner/complainant Ramniwas on the same day.  The insurance claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the Insurance Company was informed after 103 days of incident of theft.  The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.  The Insurance Company was proceeded against ex-parte, however, the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2017 of the District Forum on the ground that the intimation to the Insurance Company was given after a huge delay. 

3.      The complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the same has been dismissed in limine vide order dated 24.04.2017 of the State Commission.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel stated that the FIR was lodged on the same day.  However, due to inadvertence the Insurance Company could not be informed in writing though verbal intimation was given. Both the fora below have not considered this aspect and have passed the order against the complainant.  The learned counsel further stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the claim where there was a delay in intimation to the Insurance Company in the matter of Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another, Civil Appeal No.15611 of 2017, decided on October 4, 2017.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following:-

“11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.”

6.      Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and the Insurance claim may also be allowed on non-standard basis. 

7.      I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record.  First of all, in the case of theft, the police and the Insurance Company both are to be informed without any delay.  Learned counsel has conceded that no intimation was sent to the Insurance Company in writing though oral information was given to the Insurance Company. However, no proof has been filed for the same and therefore, oral information has no value and its authenticity is in doubt.  Insurance Company in its repudiation letter has clearly stated that the incident of theft had occurred on 29.06.2015 whereas the intimation was given on 12.10.2015.  No proper justification has been given by the petitioner for such huge delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.  In the case of Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has condoned a delay of 8 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company on the ground that the delay was properly explained.  The take from this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the technical reason of delay in intimating to the Insurance Company should not come in the way of settlement of claim if the delay is properly and satisfactorily explained.  In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to explain the delay satisfactorily and accordingly, this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from this judgment.  It is seen that there is delay of 103 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company after the vehicle was stolen.  This is a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  As no cogent explanation has been given by the petitioner for the delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the fora below.

8.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 24.04.2017 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, RP No.2352 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.