ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company), against the Order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1555 of 2010, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Insurance Company, affirming the Order dated 09.06.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Case No.450 of 2008. By the said Order, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein, and directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant/Respondent the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within one month from the date of the said Order, failing which simple interest @ 6% per annum was directed to be paid on the said amount from the date of the claim till realization as also Rs.1000/- as litigation costs.

2. The facts in brief are that in order to earn his livelihood by self-employment, the Complainant/Respondent had purchased a Dumper, bearing Registration No. HR 38 E 5731. He had taken an insurance policy from the Insurance Company for the Dumper, which was valid for the period from 17.10.2006 to 20.06.2007 and the insured value of the vehicle was Rs.3,00,000/-. During the validity period of the insurance policy, on 09.12.2006, when the Dumper was standing at GT Road, Dadri Badhpura Municipality, some unidentified miscreants stole the same, for which the Complainant/Respondent lodged a report with the Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar on 11.12.2006 vide FIR No. 687/2006 under Section 379 IPC. The Complainant/Respondent also informed the Insurance Company in writing about the theft of the Dumper and also sent a copy of the FIR to it on 19.12.2006. Subsequently, he also sent the documents sought for by the Insurance Company, including the Final Report dated 26.06.2007 submitted by the Police before the Court of CJM, District Gautam Budh Nagar. However, the Insurance Company vide their letter dated 16.01.2008 repudiated the Claim on the ground that intimation about the theft had been given to the Police with a delay of two days and to it with a delay of ten days. Even after protracted requests, the claim amount was not paid to the Complainant/Respondent.

3. The Complainant/Respondent filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the Insurance Company to pay to him the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. as also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. Upon notice, the Insurance Company contested the Complaint by filing its Reply before the District Commission. It was contended on its behalf that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy require immediate intimation to the Police as well as the Insurance Company and as there was aforesaid delay in intimating about the theft to the Police and the Insurance Company, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the repudiation of the claim was legal and justified and the Complaint was not maintainable in view of the case of Devender Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC). In the said Case, there was delay of 4 days in intimating about the theft of the vehicle to the Police and of about a month in intimating to the insurance company and this Commission had held the repudiation of the claim made by the complainant therein justified.

5. Further, it was stated by the Insurance Company in the present case that an Investigator had been appointed to investigate the circumstances under which the theft had taken place. The Investigator came to the conclusion that the claim made by the Complainant/Respondent was false as he had not arranged a meeting with the Drive