ORDER Mr. P.S. Rana, President. —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order passed by District Forum in consumer complaint No.19 of 2014 title Suresh Kumar v. General Manager National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. decided on 12.05.2016 . Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Suresh Kumar filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of vehicle No.HP-74-1112 pick-up tralla. It is pleaded that vehicle was purchased by complainant from M/s Baba Service Centre Dugha District Hamirpur in consideration amount of Rs.440000/- (Four lac and forty thousand). It is further pleaded that vehicle was parked near his house at Dimmi on roadside in night on dated 30.07.2013 and when complainant at about 7:00 AM on dated 31.07.2013 came at spot vehicle was found missing. It is pleaded that report was lodged in police station Bhoranj District Hamipur H.P. It is further pleaded that vehicle is not traceable. It is further pleaded that vehicle was duly insured with insurance company. It is pleaded that insurance company repudiated claim on the ground that on the date of theft registration certificate and fitness certificate of vehicle were not valid. Following reliefs sought by complainant before learned District Forum (i) Compensation to the tune of Rs.264000/- (Two lac and sixty four thousand) along with interest @10% per annum till realization of entire amount (ii) Additional relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.50000 (Fifty thousand) also sought for harassment and mental agony (iii) Additional relief of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand) also sought as costs of complaint. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of insurance company pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that complainant is not entitled for any compensation as prayed. It is further pleaded that registration certificate and fitness certificate of vehicle were not valid at the time of incident of theft. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing present complaint by his act and conduct. It is further pleaded that complainant did not approach learned District Forum with clean hands and it is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file complaint and prayer for dismissal of complaint with special costs sought. 4. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing present complaint by his act and conduct. It is further pleaded that complainant did not approach learned District Forum with clean hands and it is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file complaint and prayer for dismissal of complaint with special costs sought. 4. Learned District Forum allowed complaint on dated 12.05.2016 and granted following reliefs (i) learned District Forum ordered insurance company to pay Rs.264000/- (Two lac and sixty four thousand) to complainant within 30 days from receipt of copy of order (ii) learned District Forum ordered that insurance company will also pay interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint if amount is not paid within 30 days (iii) learned District Forum also granted additional relief of punitive compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs.4000/- (Four thousand) (iv) learned District Forum also granted additional relief of costs of litigation to complainant to the tune of Rs.4000/- (Four thousand). 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Complainant Suresh Kumar filed affidavit in evidence annexure C-1 placed on record. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was owner of vehicle No. HP-74-1112 pick-up tralla and there is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was purchased by complainant from M/s. Baba Service Centre Dugha Hamirpur in consideration amount of Rs.440000/- (Four lac and forty thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was parked near his house at Dimmi on roadside on dated 30.07.2013. There is further recital in affidavit that when complainant at about 7:00 AM on dated 31.07.2013 came at spot vehicle was found missing and report was lodged in police station Bhoranj District Hamirpur H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle is still not traceable. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was duly insured with insurance company. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant approached insurance company but insurance company repudiated claim. 9. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was duly insured with insurance company. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant approached insurance company but insurance company repudiated claim. 9. Insurance company filed affidavit of J.S. Mankotia Senior Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited Mridula Chowk Ashirwad Complex annexure R-1 placed on record. There is recital in affidavit that registration certificate and fitness certificate of vehicle were valid in the name of complainant only w.e.f. 16.09.2009 to 12.07.2012. There is further recital in affidavit that theft took place on the intervening night of 30/31.07.2012. There is further recital in affidavit that claim of complainant was repudiated by insurance company on 01.01.2014. There is further recital in affidavit that claim of complainant was repudiated by insurance company in accordance with law. 10. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf appellants that vehicle was plied without registration certificate and without fitness certificate and insurance company has legally repudiated claim and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Complainant claimed compensation on the ground of theft of vehicle during intervening night of 30/31.07.2012. It is held that registration certificate and fitness certificate are not contributory factors for theft. It is held that in case of theft of vehicle breach of conditions of insurance policy are not germane and it is also held that insurer is liable to indemnify owner. See (2010) Vol. II CPJ Apex Court 9 Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited . See (2008) Vol. IV CPJ 1 Apex Court National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nitin Khandelwal . 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that learned District Forum has granted interest on higher side is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned District Forum has specifically mentioned in order that interest would be charged only if amount is not paid within 30 days. 12. We have carefully perused insurance cover annexure C-10 placed on record. As per insurance cover tralla pick-up No. HP-74-1112 was duly insured with insurance company w.e.f. 04.07.2012 to 03.07.2013. Learned District Forum has specifically mentioned in order that interest would be charged only if amount is not paid within 30 days. 12. We have carefully perused insurance cover annexure C-10 placed on record. As per insurance cover tralla pick-up No. HP-74-1112 was duly insured with insurance company w.e.f. 04.07.2012 to 03.07.2013. It is proved on record that insurance company received following premiums from complainant (i) Basic premium received by insurance company from complainant to the tune of Rs.4557/- (Four thousand five hundred and fifty seven) (ii) Premium for TP revived by insurance company from complainant to the tune of Rs.10902/- (Ten thousand nine hundred and two) (iii) Premium for driver received by insurance company Rs.50/- (Fifty) (iv) Premium for two labourers received by insurance company Rs.100/- (One hundred) (v) Premium for owner driver received by insurance company Rs.100/- (One hundred). It is proved on record that insurance company received premium to the tune Rs.15858/- (Fifteen thousand eight hundred and fifty eight) from complainant vide cheque No.514825 on dated 04.07.2012. It is not case of insurance company that cheque issued by complainant was dishonoured. In view of above stated facts it is held that in stolen case of vehicle during midnight insurance company is under legal obligation to indemnify complainant. It is proved in the present case that FIR No.112 dated 31.07.2012 was also registered in police station Bhoranj District Hamirpur H.P. under section 379 IPC relating to vehicle No. HP-74-1112 pick-up tralla. It is also proved on record that Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.2 Hamirpur H.P. also accepted untraced report on dated 18.06.2013. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra it is held that repudiation letter issued by insurance company annexure R-2 is deficiency in service and is unfair trade practise. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2: Final Order 13. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is dismissed. Order of Learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.