PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 199 of 2012 Jasmer Singh Vs. The Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order of learned District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner car PB 71 0112 was insured by OP/respondent for one year commencing from 26.10.2008 to 25.10.2009. On 25.9.2009, vehicle met with an accident and FIR was lodged on 26.9.2009 at Police Station. Vehicle was taken in custody by police. Intimation of accident was given to OP through its representative Shri Harpreet Singh on his mobile on 26.9.2009. Vehicle was released on Supardari on 10.10.2009 and complainant got it repaired. Surveyor of the Insurance Co. also inspected the vehicle and asked the repairer to carry out repairs. Complainant had to make payment of Rs.2,44,535/- to the repairer as OP did not pay. OP repudiated claim on the ground of delayed information to the Insurance Company, Complainant served legal notice to the OP on 12.10.2010. Claim was not paid; hence, complainant filed complaint before District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of OP. OP filed statement and submitted that complainant intimated to OP about alleged accident on 3.12.2009. As the intimation was given after 69 days in violation of insurance policy, claim was rightly repudiated; hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by petitioner was also dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that intimation of accident was given to representative of OP on next day i.e. 26.9.2009 and legal notice was also given after 17 days; even then learned District Forum and learned State Commission have committed error in dismissing complaint. It was further submitted that even if violation of condition of policy is found, claim should have been settled on non-standard basis and prayed for settlement of claim on non-standard basis. 5. As far intimation to OP is concerned, learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the averment made in the complaint that representative of OP was intimated on 26.9.2009 on mobile phone but complainant failed to adduce any evidence to prove this fact. OP denied having received any intimation on 26.9.2009 and further submitted that the intimation was received only on 3.12.2009. Complainant ought to have filed affidavit of Harpreet Singh, the so-called representative of OP to prove the fact that intimation was received by OP on 26.9.2009. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that legal notice was served on OP after 17 days of accident and from that date, intimation to insurance company can be presumed and learned District Forum and learned State Commission have committed error in holding that intimation to insurance company was given after 69 days. This argument is devoid of force because as per complainant, legal notice was given on 12.10.2010, whereas accident occurred on 25.9.2009 meaning thereby notice was given after more than a year. It appears that learned Counsel for the petitioner assuming legal notice was served on 12.10.2009, which is not correct and in such circumstances, learned District Forum and learned State Commission have not committed any error in reaching the conclusion that intimation to OP was given by complainant after 69 days. Thus, learned District Forum and learned State Commission have rightly dismissed complaint on account of delayed information. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of delayed information, claim should have been settled on non-standard basis. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in which claim was settled on non-standard basis because vehicle was insured for personal use but at the time of accident, it was used on hire. This judgment does not help the petitioner because in that case there was only violation regarding use of the vehicle whereas in the present case, intimation of accident has been given after 69 days and OP was not in a position to assess actual loss just after accident. He has also placed reliance on IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal in which it was held that breach of policy condition in not germane in case of theft of vehicle and further observed that nature of use of vehicle cannot be looked into and claim should be settled on non-standard basis. This citation also does not help the petitioner in the light of above discussion. He has also placed reliance on II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh in which it was held that when vehicle is driven in violation of terms of policy, carrying 12 unauthorised persons, claim should be settled on non-standard basis. He also placed reliance on II (2006) CPJ 144 (NC) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak in which also the National Commission directed to settle the claim on non-standard basis, where vehicle was driven while carrying more passengers than permitted. These citations do not help the petitioner because as per terms and conditions of policy, petitioner was required to give intimation to the Insurance Company immediately after accident whereas intimation has been given after 69 days. 8. Learned State Commission has placed reliance on JT 2004 (8) SC 8 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal and decision of this Commission in F.A. No. 321 of 2005 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane in which repudiation of claim by Insurance Company was upheld as intimation to Insurance Company was given after 9 days of theft, though, FIR was lodged after 2 days of incident. 9. In the light of the above discussion, it becomes clear that as petitioner has committed breach of condition of the insurance policy by intimating after 69 days of accident to the Insurance Company, OP has not committed any error in repudiating claim and petitioner is not entitled to get compensation even on non-standard basis. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.