JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the concurrent finding and orders of fora below, i.e., District Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) passed in original complaint no. 671/09 and appeal No. 625/09, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has filed the present revision petition. The District Forum has partly allowed the complaint by awarding a compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 7.05.09, i.e. the date on which the claim was repudiated by the insurance company till the date of realization, besides awarding the litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- with the stipulation that in case the amount is not paid within the stipulated period of six weeks, the rate of interest will enhance to 18% p.a. In appeal, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Forum and has affirmed the order passed by the District Forum. 2. We have heard Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner insurance company as also Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant and have given ..3.. our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. This case raises an important question of law in regard to the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured for the loss occasioned to him due to damage to his insured vehicle which was not registered with the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the orders passed by the fora below on the simple ground that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured in the present case because the vehicle in question though insured but was not registered with the prescribed Registering Authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 which is not only the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy but is a circumstance which would show that the vehicle in question could not be plied at all on the road in the absence of registration as on the date of the peril. We are in full agreement with his submission because according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act it is one of the conditions precedent that the motor vehicle should be registered with one or the other prescribed authority before it can be plied on the road. There is no dispute that ..4.. the vehicle in question was purchased on 10.10.08 at a cost of Rs,9,10,634/- and a temporary registration no. CH-18(T)0995 was obtained and it was insured with the petitioner on or about the same date. However, during the validity period of the said temporary registration, the complainant neither applied nor obtained the permanent registration number within the prescribed period or uptil 17.11.08 when the vehicle in question met with an accident in the State of Uttrakhand. However, It has been amply brought on record that the intimation about the damage to the vehicle was passed on the insurance company and they appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss/damage to the vehicle and recommended to settle the claim at Rs.3,30,000/- on cash loss basis with the stipulation that the vehicle in question was to remain with the insured. The said offer was acceptable to the complainant but somehow it did not materialize and when the matter was under consideration with the insurance company, they learnt that the vehicle in question was not registered with the prescribed Registering Authority and, accordingly repudiated the claim. That would show that at one stage, the insurance company had waived off or will be deemed to have condoned the condition in regard to registration of the vehicle and they were willing ..5.. to settle it on non-standard basis. Having regard to these peculiar facts and circumstances it can be said that the complainant was entitled to indemnification of his loss to the extent it was agreed to by the insurance company. This being the position, the fora below have accepted the claim of the complainant to the above extent. In our view, it will be harsh and hard on the complainant to deprive him altogether of his claim once it is shown that the vehicle was duly insured and was registered, though temporarily, at the time of insurance. Considering the facts of the case, we are not inclined to upset the impugned order. However, so far as legal position is concerned, we clarify that strictly speaking the insurance company was not legally obliged to indemnify the claim of the complainant under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is stated that under the dispensation of the fora below as also under the directions of this Commission, the insurance company has already paid a sum of Rs.3,56,175/- to the respondent/complainant. In our view, payment of this amount should fully satisfy the respondent. 3. In the result, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, in view of the foregoing discussion, we observe that this ..6.. decision would not constitute a precedent and will be deemed to have been rendered on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. No order as to costs in these proceedings.