ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 297 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 82,343.25/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @ 6% p.a. pendente lite and future and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant – Sh. Mange Ram had got the building, furnace, chimney, plant and machinery, finished goods, semi-finished goods and raw material of his proprietorship concern M/s Mahalaxmi Fire Brick Udyog, insured with the appellant– The New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 07.02.2004 to 06.02.2005 under Burglary Insurance Policy. During the currency of the policy of insurance, theft took place in the insured premises on 04.12.2004, which was reported to the police and a case was registered bearing Case Crime No. 488 of 2004. The complainant also gave intimation of theft to the insurance company and lodged the claim with the insurance company and submitted all the relevant documents. But the insurance company did not settle the claim of the complainant and, as such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant did not supply the required documents; that the consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e., Bank of Baroda; that the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 07.10.2005 on the ground that theft was not covered under the policy as the stolen machinery was lying open without guard; that the intimation of theft was given to the insurance company on 29.12.2004, whereas the theft took place on 04.12.2004; that Sh. Arvind Yadav was appointed as surveyor, who has submitted his report dated 19.06.2005 to the insurance company, stating therein that most of the plant and machinery was affixed in open and the claim was not covered; that the claim was rightly repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. Arvind Yadav was appointed as surveyor, who has submitted his report dated 19.06.2005 to the insurance company, stating therein that most of the plant and machinery was affixed in open and the claim was not covered; that the claim was rightly repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 06.11.2007 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the incident of theft in the insured premises during the validity of insurance policy. The insurance company has taken the stand that there was delay on the part of the complainant in giving intimation of the theft to the insurance company and also that the loss was not covered under the policy because the stolen machinery was lying open without guard and, as such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company per letter dated 07.10.2005. 7. The complainant is running a proprietorship concern under the name and style of M/s Mahalaxmi Fire Brick Udyog, of which he is the proprietor. The business of brick manufacturing is carried out in open area and the furnace and machinery are kept together at a near distance from each other. If the insurance company was of the opinion that the business premises is open, then they should not have insured the same and also the plant and machinery lying therein. So far as taking care of the insured property by the complainant is concerned, we find force in the submission of the insurance company that the complainant has failed to take proper and reasonable care of the insured property. Sh. Rama, the watchman engaged by the complainant, has filed his affidavit dated 03.08.2007 before the District Forum (Paper No. 25), wherein he has stated that the complainant has engaged him as watchman and he is working with the complainant since 2003 and in para 4 of the said affidavit, he has specifically averred that on 04.12.2004, theft took place in the insured premises and during that period, he did not come to work for 2-3 days because of ill health. Thus, it is quite clear that on the date of the incident, nobody was deputed by the complainant to safeguard the insured property and the goods lying therein. If the watchman of the complainant was on leave and did not come to work because of ill health, it was the duty of the complainant to make some alternative arrangement and to depute some other person to safeguard the insured property, which he failed to do. The policy clearly stipulates that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured against accident, loss or damage. In view of the above facts, it is quite clear that the complainant – insured has not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the insured property and the goods lying therein, which is a clear-cut breach of the terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant. 8. So far as non-impleadment of the financier – bank is concerned, we do not find any force in the stand of the insurance company that the bank was a necessary party in the present case. The dispute in the present case is between the complainant and the insurance company with regard to the reimbursement of loss sustained by the complainant during the insurance policy on account of theft of machinery from the insured premises. The bank was not at all a necessary party in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in the case of T.G. Abraham, Chief Accountant Vs. The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.; 2004 (3) CPR 505, wherein it was held that where a necessary party is not impleaded despite opportunity being given, the District Forum was justified in dismissing the consumer complaint. In the present case, as is stated above, the bank was not a necessary party and there was no need for the complainant to implead bank as a party to the case. 9. So far as the delay in giving intimation of the theft to the insurance company is concerned, the theft in question took place on 04.12.2004 and the FIR of the same was lodged on 06.12.2004 (Paper No. 55). The insurance company has specifically pleaded in para 14 of the written statement that the intimation of theft was given to them by the complainant on 29.12.2004, after a period of 25 days of the occurrence. The insurance company has specifically pleaded in para 14 of the written statement that the intimation of theft was given to them by the complainant on 29.12.2004, after a period of 25 days of the occurrence. There is nothing on record to deny the said specific plea taken by the insurance company and to suggest that the intimation was theft was immediately given by the complainant to the insurance company. The insurance policy further stipulates that upon happening of any event giving rise or likely to give rise to a claim, the insured shall give immediate notice thereof in writing to the nearest office with a copy to the policy issuing office of the insurance company as well as lodge forthwith a complaint with the police. As is stated above, the FIR of the incident dated 04.12.2004, was lodged on 06.12.2004 and the record shows that the intimation of theft was given to the insurance company on 29.12.2004, i.e., after 25 days of the occurrence, which also is a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Devendra Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others; III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC). In the said case, the theft was reported to the police after 4 days and to the insurance company after about a month. It was held that the claim was not payable by the insurance company. Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Poomkudy Auto Service (P) Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited; III (2009) CPJ 155 (NC). In the said case, there was delay on the part of the insured in giving intimation of theft to the police as well as the insurance company and the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company was held to be justified. 11. In view of the above discussion, the claim lodged by the complainant was not payable by the insurance company and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim and by doing so, the insurance company has not made any deficiency in service. 12. 11. In view of the above discussion, the claim lodged by the complainant was not payable by the insurance company and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim and by doing so, the insurance company has not made any deficiency in service. 12. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which can not be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the appeal is fit to be allowed. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 06.11.2007 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 297 of 2006 is dismissed. No order as to costs.