ORDER

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard.

2. The theft of vehicle took place on 23.3.2010. This is an admitted fact that the information was sent to the Reliance General Insurance Ltd. after 8 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that factum of theft stands proved. He has also invited our attention towards the affidavit of Shri Dinesh, who was driving the truck.

Paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 are relevant. The same are hereby reproduced :

“

2. That the deponent has informed the owner on account of this theft on

24.03.2010 in morning time. The owner Om Prakash visited in the office of the respondent insurance company, Hisar where the office was found closed due to holiday on account of Ram Nawami.

-3-

3. That thereafter, the owner reached where the occurrence of theft was occurred/happened and met to deponent and then to concern police officials. The deponent and owner was asked by the police to remain stayed with them in order to help them for tracing out the said truck and asked to collect and provide the necessary documents and reports pertaining to the said truck. The deponent and owner remained busy with the police of Rajasthan who visited many cities and places. The police had also conveyed the massage telephonically to other police stations and police of Haryana State.

4. That the police of Rajasthan i.e. concerned I.O. forced and compelled the owner that he should be accompanied with them on patrolling duty which was conducted for tracing out the truck.

5. That the owner is aged person who left from the police station Rajasthan to village on 29.03.2010 and reached 30.03.2010. On 28.03.2010 it was Sunday. However, he approached to the officer of Insurance Company at Hisar and lodged reports in respect of theft of said truck which was got insured at Hisar by the respondent. He had provided all the necessary documents demanded by respondent and found the theft claim to be genuine. The copy of same is already attached with file as Ex. R-2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards condition No. 1, which runs as follows:

Condition No. 1. 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. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or criminal act, which may be the subject to a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no violation of the condition on the part of the petitioner. It is pointed out that FIR was registered on the same very day and the survey report clearly mentions that the theft is genuine.

-5-

5. All these arguments leave no impression upon this Commission. The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010 was pleased to hold:

“Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 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 state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car