ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Whether the direction given by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Delhi (District North) (for short ‘the District Forum’) to the appellant-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to settle the claim of the complainant-respondent on non-standard basis was legally correct and justified and whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short ‘the State Commission’) and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the National Commission’) rightly declined to interfere with the same is the only question which requires consideration in this appeal. 3. The respondent had obtained insurance policy in respect of his car bearing No. DL 2C E 9425 for a period of one year commencing from 17.1.1995. The car is said to have been stolen between 18.1.1995 and 20.1.1995 from outside the house of the respondent. He claims to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the alleged theft of car but no intimation was given to the appellant till 22.5.1995 when a letter is said to have been sent to the Branch Manager. 4. The respondent’s claim for compensation was repudiated by the appellant on the ground of breach of the conditions of policy. 5. The respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/- with interest by asserting that in terms of the policy, he was entitled to be compensated for loss of the car. The appellant contested the claim mainly on the ground that the respondent had violated the conditions of policy inasmuch as no intimation was given about the alleged theft of the vehicle for almost five months. 6. By an order dated 14.7.2000, the District Forum held the appellant guilty of deficiency of service and issued the following directions: “(i) To settle the claim of the complainant on ‘Non-Standard Basis’ and pay to him 75% of the amount of loss of Rs. 1,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 20.7.1995 i.e. the date of repudiation till payment is made. (ii) Also pay to complainant Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.” 7. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the State Commission and the revision filed against the order of the State Commission was dismissed by the National Commission. 8. We have heard Mr. P.K. Seth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. (ii) Also pay to complainant Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.” 7. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the State Commission and the revision filed against the order of the State Commission was dismissed by the National Commission. 8. We have heard Mr. P.K. Seth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. However, we do not have the benefit of hearing the counsel representing the respondent because he has thought it proper not to appear despite the fact that we waited for about fifteen minutes for his appearance. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer for as omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy. 12. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order as also those passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed.