1. THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 30.11.2010 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No.2008 of 2008 by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, Siraj Khan against the order dated 17.04.08 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Saswai Madhopur (in short, ''the District Forum'') in Consumer Complaint No.108/2008 dismissing the complaint of the petitioner.
2. WE have heard Mr. Alok Bhachawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. There is a delay of 252 days in filing this revision petition for which the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. We have considered the application for condonation of delay, but find that it does not contain any convincing ground which could constitute sufficient cause so as to persuade us to condone the delay. Rather it contains certain general and vague submissions in support of the request for condoning the delay. Paragraph 2 of the application is reproduced below by way of example in this regard:
"2. That there is no limitation prescribed by filing a revision in the Consumer Protection Act, still by way of abundant caution, in case the limitation period is taken to be 90 days as per Article 131 of Limitation Act, this application is being filed for condoning the delay of about 200 days in filing the present Revision Petition".
3. IN the absence of sufficient and convincing ground for condoning the inordinate delay of 252 days for filing this revision petition, we are not inclined to condone the delay and the revision petition is liable for dismissal on this count alone. However, we have looked into the merits as well.
4. BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner insured his tractor with the respondent no.2. This tractor was allegedly snatched away by some three unknown persons on 29.12.2006 after kidnapping the son of the petitioner. While the son was released by the kidnappers on 4.1.2007, there was no trace of tractor. A report in this regard came to be lodged with the PS: Mangrole on 30.12.2006, but according to the petitioner, it was not accepted saying that the same may be lodged at Sawai Moadhopur. According to the petitioner, the information about this incident was given to all the respondents by letter under UPC and thereafter the petitioner also contacted the police officials, but since nothing seemed to have been done, he filed a complaint in the court, but after investigation, the FIR was filed as the tractor and the accused were not traceable. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint with the District Forum which found that there was delay in lodging the FIR and also sending information to the respondents which amounted to violation of conditions of the insurance contract. In view of this and also on jurisdictional point, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 17.04.2008. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal challenging the same before the State Commission which confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
5. IT emerges from perusal of the facts of the case and the documents placed on record that there was inordinate delay in informing the police as well as the opposite parties about the alleged incident. Nothing has been produced before us to counter this important aspect. The State Commission following the order of the National Commission in Appeal No. 321 of 2005 in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. It is well settled by a catena of judgments that time is of essence in such cases and delay is in lodging the FIR and sending intimation about theft to the insurer would be fatal to the recovery of the insured vehicle and hence repudiation of the claim on this ground would be justified. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same in limine on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
