PER MR. PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.04.2015 of the State Commission passed in FA No. FA/14/526. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner / complainant purchased a vehicle – Bolero vide Sale Certificate dated 13.04.2012 and got the insurance from the respondent – insurance company. He took insurance policy from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. On 22.07.2012, the complainant parked the said vehicle in front of the house of Mr. Chintaram Chandrakar, brother of father-in-law of the complainant and the vehicle was duly locked. At about 3.00AM when the complainant woke up, then he found that the vehicle was not in the place he parked and some unknown person had stolen the vehicle. He searched the vehicle and when he could not trace it, Mr. Chintaram Chandrakar gave intimation to the police station, Gunderdehi, on telephone and also to the OP. The Police station sent message to different police stations via wireless set. Thereafter, the complainant lodged report on 27.07.2012 at police station, Gunderdehi where offence No.108/2012 was registered. The OP was intimated regarding the incident of theft on telephone on the same day. The complainant was told by the official of the OP that claim form will be issued to him when he will bring copy of the FIR. After making several requests by the complainant, the OP issued claim form to him and thereafter the complainant, after completing all the formalities, submitted the claim form along with the relevant documents before the OP. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP on 31.10.2012 on the ground that report was lodged after 5 days of the incident. The complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum. 3. The OP filed written statement and averred that a false report was lodged by the complainant. The report was lodged after five days of the incident, which is belated. The complainant had parked the vehicle on open space/unauthorised parking area without any safety measures and the vehicle was being used by the complainant without obtaining certificate of registration, which is violation of provisions of section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to get any compensation from the OP. The OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. 4. The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 24.07.2014. 5. The complainant preferred the appeal against the order of the District Forum, which was dismissed by the order dated 17.04.2015 of the State Commission. 6. Hence, this revision petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the District Forum dismissed the claim on the ground that the intimation to the police and to the insurance company was given with delay and that was in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. In the appeal, the State Commission has not given any finding on the aspect of delay in giving intimation to the police as well as to the insurance company, however, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on a different ground that the vehicle was not registered on the date of theft. It was argued by the learned counsel that the complainant had already applied for the temporary registration and he received the temporary registration just after a day after the theft, i.e., on 23.07.2012, whereas, the theft had occurred on 22.07.2012. If the delay has occurred in the office of the RTO, the complainant cannot be held responsible for not getting the registration certificate. 9. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police was informed on the same day. However, the police did not lodge the FIR and the same was lodged on 27.07.2012 and same day, the insurance company was also informed. Learned counsel mentioned that Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission have allowed the claims where there was some delay in giving intimation to the insurance company. The learned counsel further stated that the registration number is required only for taking the vehicle on the road, whereas this vehicle has been stolen when it was parked. Therefore, both the points on which the District Forum and the State Commission have dismissed the complaint are not justified and the complainant’s claim deserves to be allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention to the Daily Dy. Sanha dated 21.12.2012 of P.S. Gunderdehi, District Balor. Learned counsel stated that in this Daily Dy. Sanha there are entries in respect of movement of Sub-Inspector R.K. Sahu when he has gone, after getting information of theft for spot inspection. It would prove that the intimation was given to the local Police, however, they take time to actually register the F.I.R. which they register only after some preliminary inquiry at their level. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that delay in filing the FIR or in intimating to the insurance company has not been explained by the complainant. The foremost condition for the claim of theft is that the matter should be immediately reported to the police and to the insurance company. The complainant has totally failed in giving urgent intimation to the police and to the insurance company. 12. It was asserted by the learned counsel for the respondent that both the fora below have given concurrent findings and have dismissed the complaint. The scope under the revision petition is quite limited and facts cannot be reassessed at the level of the revision petition. 13. I have carefully considered the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. It is seen from the record that the vehicle was stolen on 22.07.212 and the insurance company has been intimated on 27.07.2012 on the same day when it was informed to the police. Thus, there is delay of five days in informing the police as well as the insurance company. In a matter of theft, the information to the police is very important as the police may try to search the vehicle. If the intimation is given late, the vehicle cannot be searched and it gives rise to suspicion of a collusion of the complainant in the act of theft. The Daily Dy. Sanha filed by the complainant also does not help the complainant as this is dated 21.07.2012 whereas, the theft has occurred on 22.07.2012. So, on the face of it, this Daily Dy. Sanha is doubtful as the Police/ Sub-Inspector cannot proceed to investigate before the crime has happened. 14. In the present matter, the most important aspect is the lack of registration certificate of the vehicle on the day of theft. Though the sale certificate is dated 13.04.2012, but there was no registration till 22.07.2012. Thus, the vehicle was being run without any registration number by the complainant, in gross violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 15. The ground of delay in intimation as well as the ground of non-registration of the vehicle were already taken in the repudiation letter and, therefore, it cannot be said that any of the fora below has taken a fresh ground for dismissing the complaint. Even if the delay in intimation, is over-looked, the major violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 cannot be over-looked in such a case. No contract can permit violation of the Law of the Land. Therefore, the contract of insurance also cannot be held valid under conditions of violation of the Law of the Land, as in this case, the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 have been grossly violated. 16. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition as I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the State Commission which calls for interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision Petition No. 1427 of 2015 is dismissed. | 
