PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 866/2013 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sunder by which, while dismissing appeal order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent Tempo U.P. 86 H 9845 was insured by OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 23.5.2011. On 12.7.2011, complainant along with his son Puneet Kumar were coming to Agra from Aligarh along with goods and owner of the goods, the complainant stopped his vehicle under the jurisdiction of Police Station Khair, where he and his son came out of the vehicle to attend natural calls and parked the vehicle on the road and in the meantime, owner of the goods fled away with the vehicle. FIR was lodged with the Police Station Khair and claim was submitted to the OP, but OP repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that the complainant committed negligence by leaving the key in the vehicle while going to ease out and claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest and Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- for litigation charges. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order against which; this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of changed version regarding theft of vehicle and leaving ignition key in the vehicle by the complainant, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that in FIR lodged by Puneet S/o complainant on 12.7.2011 mentioned that when he was coming from Agra with some unknown person along with his goods at 9.00 P.M. he stopped the vehicle on the road side and went for easing out and when returned back, found that unknown person fled away with the vehicle. In claim form submitted by the complainant with the OP, complainant gave short description of the accident: y son was coming from Agra with goods and the goods owner, who was unknown person. He took my son near the bypass for taking goods from there, he snatched the vehicle on a gun point. On the way that unknown person allowed two more goons to enter into vehicle. They all tied the driver i.e. Puneet and thrown him alongside the road. Those goons took all the documents like insurance, driving licence etc. which were lying in the vehicle along with the vehicle 6. Perusal of this statement reveals that vehicle was snatched by three persons on gun point after tiding Puneet and throwing him alongside the road. In intimation to OP, complainant affirmed contents of the FIR lodged by his son Puneet. On the contrary, in complaint filed before District forum, complainant submitted that he along with his son Puneet were coming with goods and his owner from Agra and in the way he and his son Puneet went to ease out and in the meanwhile, owner of the goods fled away with the said vehicle. 7. Thus, it becomes clear that complainant himself has shown his presence in the vehicle at the time of accident, but FIR, intimation to OP and claim form does not show his presence. In this way, the complainant has tried to improve earlier statement and has inserted his presence, though; he was not present on the spot. Not only this, in the FIR, intimation to Insurance Company and in the complaint it has been pleaded that while going for easing out and left key in the vehicle, the vehicle was taken away by owner of the goods, who was sitting in the vehicle, whereas in the claim form complainant tried to justify the fact that the vehicle was snatched by owner of the goods along with 2 persons at gun point by tiding Puneet and throwing him out of the vehicle. Looking to the different statements of the complainant, version of the complainant does not inspire confidence and it appears that complainant has not come with clean hands. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of Honle Apex Court delivered in SLP (C ) No. 8479 of 1999 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors. in which it was observed that : raud and justice never dwell together.(Frans et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything( (Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Beasley 1956(1) QB 702.) No one can possibly fault the Insurance Company for persistently pursuing the matter up to this court because they are dealing with public money. If they have discovered that such public fund, in a whopping measure, would be knocked off fraudulently through a fake claim, there is full justification for the Insurance Company in approaching the Tribunal itself first. At any rate the High Court ought not have refused to consider their grievances. What is the legal remedy when a party to a judgment or order of court later discovered that it was obtained by fraud? 8. In the light of above judgment it becomes clear that a party who has not come with clean hands cannot get relief from Consumer Forum and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as complainant himself left the key in the vehicle and went for easing out, he violated Condition No. 5 of the policy, which runs as under: Condition No. 5:he insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss of 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 breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions 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 10. Perusal of aforesaid condition makes it clear that complainant son was under an obligation to take key of the vehicle with him while going to ease out. While he himself had left the key in the vehicle, he violated Condition No. 5 of the policy and in such circumstances; OP has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim of the complainant. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 375 of 2013 - Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Cholamandalam & Anr. in which it was held that if driver was in the hurry to answer the call of nature and the driver forgot to remove keys from the ignition switch, he cannot be said to have committed willful breach in violation of Condition No. 5 of the policy. In the case in hand, there is no averment in the FIR, complaint etc. that Puneet Kumar along with his father complainant were in hurry to answer the nature of call and the driver forgot to take key with him. Rather, in motor claim form, complainant tried to justify that the vehicle was taken away at gun point. In the aforesaid judgment Sukhwinder Singh (Supra), judgment of this Commission reported in IV (2010) CPJ 297 (NC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamal Singhal was also referred in which it was observed that driver is not expected to carry key of the vehicle with him while going to answer the natural call, particularly, when the vehicle was within his sight. In case in hand, we do not find any averment in the complaint that vehicle was within the sight of complainant and his son when they went for easing out. In such circumstances, Sukhwinder Singh case does not help the respondent and we hold that learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal inspite of the fact that the complainant or his son were negligent in leaving the key in the vehicle and changing their version and not coming with clean hands before District Forum and impugned order is liable to set aside. 12. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 866/2013 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sunder and order of District forum dated 5.2.2013 passed in Complaint No. 21 of 2012 Shyam Sunder Vs. The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.