Heard learned counsel for parties. Factual backgrounds are that following default in adhering to payment schedule for liquidation of loan borrowed by respondent from Karnataka State Financial Corporation, the transport vehicle was seized by Corporation. Vehicle in question, however, while it was in custody of Corporation, met with an accident on 21.02.1999 and suffered substantial damages. Vehicle having met with accident during currency of insurance, a claim was lodged by respondent with petitioner insurance company which was repudiated holding, fitness certificate and permit to use vehicle, being not in force as on date of accident. Aggrieved with repudiation of claim, respondent pulled petitioner Corporation to consumer fora, filing complaint. Though claim was resisted by petitioner Corporation disowning their liability, for neither permit nor fitness certificate being in force on date of accident, District Forum, having over-ruled contentions raised, holding repudiation bad, directed insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.1,15,802.73. State Commission, in appeal, notwithstanding having held that vehicle had met with accident subsequent to expiry of permit, fastened liability against insurance company to pay compensation treating claim as “non-standard”, in back-drop of assessment of damages made by Surveyor. Rival contentions are raised by learned counsels for parties. Learned counsel for respondent would seek to justify finding of fora below on premises that after insurance company had insured vehicle with open eyes, on status of validity of either fitness certificate or permit and, had also accepted premium from them, it was no longer open to them to defeat their claim on ‘untenable’ grounds. Even though their grievance had not been fully redressed by State Commission, in given circumstances, finding of State Commission to treat claim as “standard claim” was quite judicious. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner insurance company would, however, draw our attention to express stipulations made in insurance policy, issued to respondent, which are in the following terms :- “ the policy covers the use only under permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such carriage falling under sub-section 8 of Section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”. Undisputable facts are that insurance coverage was provided to the vehicle for the period from 12.08.1998 to 11.08.1999, though fitness certificate of vehicle in question was valid only upto 03.08.1999. Similar was the case with permit for use of vehicle, which too had expired on 20.12.1998, after four months of commencement of policy. No step appears to have been taken by respondent for renewal of either the permit or fitness certificate authorizing them to ply the vehicle on road. As for requirement of statute, one may take notice of section 56 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which requires that :- transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of section 39 unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form, containing such particulars and information, as may be prescribed by the central government, issued by the prescribed authority…….” Section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – too mandates that no owner of a motor vehicle can use or permit the use of vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted by prescribed authority authorizing him for use of the vehicle. We may also take notice of provisions of section 84 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which are in following terms :- “General conditions attaching to all permits – the following shall be conditions of every permit :- “That the vehicle to which permit relates carries valid certificate of fitness, issued under section 56 and is at all times so maintained as to comply with the requirements of this Act and the Rules made thereunder ……”. A combined and harmonious reading of provisions read with Sections 39, 59 & 60 would show that transport vehicle was required to have a fitness certificate impliedly for safety of passengers who travel therein. These were statutory requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in violation of which vehicle was put to use on the road. Defence taken by respondent against repudiation of their claim that it was not open to insurance company to question validity of either permit or fitness certificate, once insurance company having accepted premium, had insured vehicle, was quite untenable, for authorizing violation of mandatory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, simply for respondent securing insurance policy. This defence too was not available to respondent in view of express stipulations made in policy that policy covers use of vehicle only under permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or such carriage falling under sub-section 8 of section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There being breach of mandatory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also that of policy, it would be quite unfair to fasten liability against insurance company to ask them even to treat the claim as “non-standard” claim. The authority of insurance company to resist the claim of the insured, taking recourse to provisions of section 149(2)(a)(i), was held to be valid by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma & Ors. – (2004) 8 SCC 517. We are told that at a point of time, the insurance company was, however, keen to offer Rs. 45,000/- to respondent subject to policy conditions to which respondent too, had agreed. Parties are free to negotiate on this term, if so advised. Revision petition, in the circumstances of the case succeeds, while we set aside finding of State Commission. However, there would be no order as to cost.