Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant being owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-14W-3077 has purchased policy from OP No.1 for the period covering from 28.3.2012 to 27.3.2013 for Rs.11,90,000/-. It is alleged that on 19.9.2012, the vehicle was stolen from Bhimsen Petrol Pump at Brahmanitarang. Complainant alleged inter alia that on the next day, he informed the police but the FIR was not registered. So, he informed the Senior Officer and accordingly, FIR was registered on later date. Further, it is alleged that he informed the OPs on the same day but the OPs repudiated the claim stating that Condition No.1 of the policy has been violated by not informing the OP immediately after the occurrence. Finding such repudiation as deficiency of service, the complainant filed the complaint.

4.      OP No.1 filed written version stating that complaint is not maintainable. After getting information, they have started investigation and found that the complainant did not give notice immediately after the occurrence so as to comply condition No.1 of the policy. Since condition No.1 of the policy has not been complied, they have repudiated the claim.  Thus, OP No.1 claimed that there is no any deficiency of service on their part.

5.      OP No.2 filed separate written version stating that they are not necessary party to the complaint case because allegation is against OP No.1.

6.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum  passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The complaint is therefore, partly allowed against the OP No.1 Insurances Company only. The OP No.1 Insurance Company is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.8,92,500/- (Rupees eight lakh ninety two thousand five hundred) only along with interest @9% per annum from 6 (xix) months after the date of theft i.e. 19.03.2013 till its payment towards her claim within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the CC Case is disposed of.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has erred in law by not considering the written version. According to him FIR was registered 57 days after the occurrence but learned District Forum decided case without going through the policy condition which says that notice shall be given in writing to the insurance company immediately after the occurrence of theft of vehicle. Learned District Forum committed error in law by not following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurshinder Singh vrs. Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 2020 SC page 1395 where Their Lordships held that the fact of theft or burglary must be reported either to the police or to the insurance company immediately otherwise the complaint would fail due to violation of policy condition. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no immediate report lodged neither to the police nor the insurer. The learned District Forum has not gone through the facts and law and the same should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for  the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      The complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.

10.    It is admitted fact that the complainant has insured the vehicle with OP No.1 and during currency of the policy, there was allegation of theft of the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that OP No.1 after receiving claim petition started investigation. In the decision of Gurshinder Singh (Supra) Their Lordships have categorically held that policy condition related to immediate notice should be given by the insured to the insurer or the police. With due respect to the said decision, in the instant case, it appears that the complainant has alleged to have informed the police on the same day and the insurance company also. But the police did not register the case on that date and registered later on 57 days after. The copy of the FIR is also available on record. Had there been information on the same day, there must have been endorsement of such fact in the FIR itself which is lodged on 15.11.2012 but the same fact is lacking. Apart from this, it is admitted fact that they have informed the insurer on 2.12.2012. In the DFR, it is only explained by the learned District Forum that  since the complainant has   informed the police later on and the delay has been explained, policy condition No.1 has been duly complied. When the complainant has failed to prove through evidence that he has informed the police immediately and the learned District Forum took the delay being explained, there is no other conclusion than to arrive that  complainant has not given immediate notice to OP No.1 or the police regarding theft of the vehicle. Policy Condition No.1 says that notice must be given immediately to the OP about occurrence. Since the information has not been lodged immediately in the instant case, the policy condition has been violated. Learned District Forum has not at all considered such factual and legal aspect properly. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and improper and the same is set aside.

          The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.

          Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.