JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Azad Sharma, the complainant/petitioner, obtained insurance policy in connection with his Truck bearing No. HR-46-C-0936, for the period between 24.02.2007 to 23.02.2008. On 22.02.2008, a day before the expiry of the policy, the aforesaid Truck was stolen while it was parked in front of Chhotu Ram Stadium, Rohtak, between 5.00AM to 10.00AM. The PCR call was made at about 10.30AM by the petitioner for the above said theft. FIR was lodged with the Police Station, Urban Estate, Rohtak, under Section 379 IPC, for the theft of the above said vehicle on 20.03.2008. Learned A.C.J.M. was submitted untraced report on 12.11.2008. The petitioner made a claim for compensation from Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP, on 24.12.2008. The claim of the petitioner was repudiated. Legal notice was sent but it did not ring the bell. Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the complainant in the year 2009. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, this revision petition was filed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has invited our attention towards the complaint, wherein it was mentioned that the complainant immediately informed the police regarding the theft of the said above said vehicle by giving telephonic message on telephone No.100. He has also placed on record True photocopy of the certificate issued by the police, which runs as follows:- ertified that one telephone received from Mobile No. 9253308830 on dated 22.02.2008 at 10.30AM from Azad Singh, son of Sh. Jag Ram, resident of H.No.1750/10, Ram Gopal Colony, Rohtak that Truck No. HR-46C-0936 was stolen from Chhotu Ram Stadium, Rohtak, after 5.00AM. This information conveyed to V.H.F. operator for all station to search out the stolen truck Secondly, he submitted that the petitioner had locked the vehicle. 3. Instead of touching the heart of the problem, the learned counsel for the petitioner just skirted it. The case put forward by the respondent is that at the time of the theft of the vehicle, the same was left unattended and cabin of the vehicle was not locked. Again, the FIR was lodged after more than one month of the occurrence of the above said theft. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner half-heartedly argued that the keys of the cabin and the Truck were with the driver and the same were submitted to the police. This is a mere allegation which has not been proved by any cogent and plausible evidence. The Panchnama does not mention the same. The FIR also does not mention the said fact. This plea advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is nothing but a ruse to make sure that the petitioner must get the insurance amount, under all circumstances. In case the keys were with the petitioner, those should have been produced before the police or before the District Forum. No such plea was set up in the complaint. The District Forum took the correct view that the petitioner was negligent as he did not lock the vehicle which led to the commission of the theft. Condition No.4 of the policy runs as follows:- ondition No.4: The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times, free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precaution being taken to prevent further damage or loss, and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected, any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured own risk 5. It may also be mentioned here that after receipt of the information, the OP immediately appointed M/s. Royal Associates to investigate the claim made by the Claimant. The Investigator made the report to this effect that the cabin of vehicle in question was not locked at the time of the theft which facilitated the theft and it shows the negligence of complainant who left his vehicle unattended in drivable condition and thus the complainant failed to take reasonable safeguard of the insured vehicle as per policy condition No.4. 6. The District Forum has rightly placed reliance on the judgments of this Commission reported in Sathavahana Sea Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2009 (2) CPC pg.122 (NC) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.T.V. Sarathi, 2009 (2) CPC 343 (NC). 7. The Apex court in a celebrated authority reported in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP), was pleased to hold that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the court to dd eleteor ubstituteany words. 8. Secondly, FIR was registered after about one month. No reason is forthcoming as to why the FIR was delayed, by such a long period. It must be borne in mind that the policy of the petitioner was to expire a day, thereafter. It becomes very doubtful whether the theft took place on the above said date or thereafter after the expiry of the policy. It keeps us in the twilight world of suspicion and does not give a clear picture. The above said certificate by a police officer carries exiguous value. This certificate cannot replace the FIR. When the petitioner knew that the policy was going to expire on the next very day, he should have left no stone unturned to lodge the FIR instantaneously. The delay in such like cases is fatal. The FIR would have gone a long way to pull this case out of the morass it is in. Condition No.1 of the insurance policy, runs as follows:- ondition No.1: Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company require. Every letter/ claim/writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution Inquest or Fatal Inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender 9. In case, no proper information is given to the police and the insurance company is also informed at a late stage, in that case, how the thieves can be caught. They must have ran away to a far off distance. 10. In view of all these facts and circumstances, we find no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.