JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commissiion Uttar Pradesh dated 04.07.2017 in First Appeal no. 2503/2015. 2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioners got their tractor no. UP 75 Q 2180 insured with the respondent / insurance company. The insurance policy was taken through respondent no.2 Bank who had financed the loan for purchase of tractor. According to the complainants, the insured tractor during the validity of insurance cover was stolen on the night intervening 4th and 5th April, 2013. Intimation of theft was given to the police vide FIR No. 168/2-013 under section 379 IPC, P.S. Bah, District Agra. After the closure of investigation, the complainant filed insurance claim. The insurance claim was repudiated by the respondent / insurance company vide letter dated 29.03.2014 on the ground of violation of condition no.1 of the insurance contract which requires the insured to give immediate notice in writing upon occurrence of any accidental loss or damage to the insured vehicle and also for violation of condition which requires the insured to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. It was stated in the repudiation letter that driver of the subject tractor on the night of theft had parked it with keys in ignition and the intimation of theft of vehicle was given after a delay of approximately 300 days. 3. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence came to the conclusion that there was violation of condition no.1 of the insurance contract because the complainants had intimated the theft to the police after eight days on 13.04.2013. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to the complainants on non standard basis and directed the respondent no.1/ insurance company to pay to the complainants sum of Rs.6,46.225/- against the insurance claim with 7% interest thereon till the date of realization. 4. Respondent / opposite party no.1 being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission Uttar Pradesh on re-appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that petitioners / complainants have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance contract by intimating the theft of tractor to the police after eight days without any satisfactory reason and also by failing to give immediate intimation of theft in writing to the insurance company. The State Commission also concluded that insured had failed to take proper precautions to protect the tractor from loss by leaving keys in the ignition of the tractor which was parked outside on the street. The State Commission thus relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha – Civil Appeal No.6739/2010, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. This has led to the filing of the revision petition. 5. Shri Nikhil Jain, Advocate for the petitioners / complainants has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is based upon incorrect appreciation of facts. The State Commission has failed to appreciate that there was no delay on the part of the complainants in reporting the theft to the police. Therefore, finding regarding violation of condition no.1 of the insurance contract is not sustainable. 6. I do not find merit in the above contention. Stand of the complainants in para 2 of the complaint is that insured tractor was stolen on the night intervening 4th and 5th April, 2013. On perusal of copy of the FIR filed by the petitioner, it is evident that theft was intimated to the police on 13.04.2013 after a lapse of eight days from the theft. No explanation for such a long delay in reporting theft to the police is given in the complaint. 7. On perusal of record, it transpires that insurance claim of the complainants was repudiated vide letter dated 29.03.2014. The relevant reason for repudiation of claim is reproduced as under: “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require, and insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition.” 8. On perusal of the above, it is clear that the opposite party has repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that the complainants in utter disregard of condition no.1 of the insurance contract failed to give immediate intimation of theft in writing to the insurance company and that intimation for the first time was given after a delay of 300 days. Complainants have nowhere mentioned in the complaint as to on which date intimation of theft in writing was given to the insurance company. This means that complainants have accepted the plea of the insurance company that intimation of theft was given to insurance company after a lapse of 300 days. 8. Condition no.1 of the insurance contract specifically provides that in the event of occurrence of any accidental loss or damage to the insured vehicle, insured shall give an intimation in writing to the insurance company immediately. As the intimation was given after 300 days, this is clear case of violation of condition no.1 of the insurance contract. 9. The effect of delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha in Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 arising out of SLP ( C) No. 12741 of 2010, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “Admittedly, the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.05.1995 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 not 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 19.09.1995 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 20.01.1995 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 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.” 10. In view of the aforesaid finding of the Supreme Court, repudiation of the insurance claim by the opposite party cannot be faulted. There is no material irregularity or jurisdiction error in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. | 
