Judgment As per S.K. KUlshrestha, J.:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 3-1 -2008 of the District Forum, Satna in Complaint Case No. 298/2007. 2. The facts, in short, are that a tractor-trolley was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company for the period 31-12-2005 to 30-12-2006. It was alleged that theft of the tractor-trolley had taken place on 9-9-2006. However, the FIR was filed on 13-9-2006 and the Insurance Company was informed on 19-9-2006. Though the information was belated, yet the Insurance Company appointed its investigator who gave report that it was not a case of theft but the persons travelling with the insured in the tractor had taken it away after putting some intoxicating substance in his food at a "dhaba" where all of them had alighted to have food. The police also gave final report. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the judgment of the National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, in which the requirement of sending information immediately had been construed as information within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of circumstances of the case. It has further been stated that in the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, the valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to make immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. 4. The requirement of immediate information to the police and the Insurance Company has a purpose. Passage of time can permit the miscreants to take away the stolen property and defeat the attempt of the police and the Insurance Company to trace out the vehicle. 5. In the present case, as stated above, the FIR was lodged on 13-9-2006 in relation to the incident of 9-9-2006 and the Insurance Company was informed as late as on 19-9-2006. No explanation is forthcoming to show that there was some intervening circumstance, which prevented the complainant from making the report to the Insurance Company and to the police immediately. 6. No explanation is forthcoming to show that there was some intervening circumstance, which prevented the complainant from making the report to the Insurance Company and to the police immediately. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that stand of the Insurance Company in reply to the notice, in its written statement and the affidavit of Divisional Manager was at variance. In all these statements in so far as the delay in lodging the report and informing the Insurance Company is concerned, there is consistency. Since the Insurance Company and the police were prevented from tracing out the tractor and trolley, on account of the delay in reporting the matter, the delay goes to the root of the matter. 7. It has also been stated that these four persons had boarded the tractor-trolley from village itself and, therefore, the tractor was taken by known persons. There is no evidence to that effect and, therefore, this contention of the Insurance Company deserves to be discarded. However, the fact of delay assumes importance in such cases and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. In the result, the order passed by the District Porum is set aside and this appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to the costs,