Complainant/petitioner had insured his truck with the respondent insurance company for a sum of Rs.8 lakh. The truck was financed by opposite party No.2. On 8.1.2005, the said truck was allegedly stolen by some unknown person at Narnaul. FIR was lodged. Complainant submitted his claim with the respondent insurance company after a period of 8 months, whereas it was required to inform the insurance company immediately after the occurrence. His claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that information was not given to them in time. Thereafter, complaint was filed before the District Forum, which was dismissed. Being not satisfied by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed. This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 232 days. Under the Consumer Protection Act, consumer fora are expected to dispose of the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and, in case, some evidence is required to be led, then within 150 days. Delay of 232 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. The only reason given in the application for condonation of delay is as under : “That the petitioner has informed his previous counsel at Haryana to file the Revision Petition in the month of March 2009 and the said counsel has informed him that he will file the same within limitation and the petitioner was not medically fit and could not visit the counsel personally and used to ask the counsel on phone as the petitioner is residing in a remote area at Jhajjar, Haryana and the counsel informed him that he has filed the said revision, but later on the petitioner came to know that the said revision has not been filed by the previous counsel in time and due to this reason the Revision Petition could not be filed in time.” We are not satisfied with the cause shown. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in the Revision Petition. The petitioner had admittedly informed the insurance company about the theft after 7 months of the incident, whereas it was required to inform the insurance company immediately after the occurrence. This has deprived the insurance company of its valuable right to investigate the matter. Dismissed on merits as well.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
