1. THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 24th January, 2011 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit
Bench, Jaipur (in short, ""the State Commission"") by which the State Commission set aside the order dated 22nd March, 2007 of the District
Consumer District Redressal Forum, Tonk (in short, ""the District Forum""). The District Forum had held the Insurance Company (respondent No.
1 in this petition) guilty of deficiency in service in repudiating the insurance claim of Rang Lal, (deceased) owner of the tractor which was insured
with the said respondent during the relevant period (11.2.2004 to 10.2.2005) and was stolen on 8.6.2004. Accordingly, the District Forum
directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 3.65 lakh along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment as
well as cost of Rs. 5,000 all to be paid within a period of one month from the date of the order.
2. ON consideration of the conditions of the insurance policy in relation to the facts of the case, the State Commission came to the conclusion that
the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the insurance claim and, accordingly, set aside the order of the District Forum. It is against this
order that the legal representatives of the deceased complainant have come up in revision petition.
3. THE basic facts relating to the case are not in dispute. The tractor of the deceased complainant was stolen during the period of validity of the
insurance policy on 8.6.2004. However, the case was registered by the Police on 21.6.2004 and the complainant/insured informed the Insurance
Company of the theft on 25.8.2004. According to the conditions of the insurance policy, the theft had to be intimated to the Insurance Company
immediately"". Clearly, in this case, there was an unconscionable delay of over two months on the part of the complainant/insured in intimating the
delay to the Insurance Company.
4. ON the basis of the decision of this Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Trilochan Jane, the State Commission
held that this delay was fatal because it completely prevented the Insurance Company from carrying out any investigation as to the truth of the
alleged theft. It was also noticed that the police was unable to recover the tractor and put up a final report before the Court to the effect that the
tractor was not traceable.
5. IN the above mentioned case relied upon by the State Commission, this Commission had observed inter alia as under:
In the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the Insurance Company about the theft for a period of nine days, which could be fatal
to the investigation. The delay in lodging the FIR after two days of the coming to know of the theft and nine days to the Insurance Company, can
be fatal, as in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to Kabaadi (scrap
dealer)"".
Notably, in this case, the delay in intimating the theft to the Insurance Company was of over two months.
6. GIVEN the facts discussed above, we are in agreement with the findings and order of the State Commission. As a consequence, the revision
petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.