IMPORTANT POINT
Well settled that in case of theft of vehicle, nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into.

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21st September, 2006 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission) in R. P. No. 2638 of 2006.

3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary to dispose of the matter are recapitulated as under:-

4. The respondent Nitin Khandelwal had purchased the vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing No.HR-18-8743 on 28.5.2003. On 27.9.2003, he had sent his vehicle to bring his children from Jaipur. On the way, some unknown people stopped the vehicle, tied the driver and dumped him on the way and snatched away the vehicle. The report was lodged by the driver at the police station and the appellant Insurance Company was informed of the same. Thereafter, on 2.10.2003, the respondent filed an insurance claim, which was rejected by the Insurance Company.

5. The appellant’s version was that the vehicle was being used as a taxi and the four passengers had hired the vehicle for going from Gwalior to Karoli and those passengers, on the way, snatched the vehicle from the driver. The vehicle was insured for personal use and it was being used by the respondent as a taxi. According to the appellant, the respondent had violated the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, rejected the claim. The respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Gwalior, M.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”).

6. According to the District Forum, the respondent had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that the appellant Insurance Company was justified in rejecting the claim of the respondent. The respondent, aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, filed an appeal before the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”).

7. The State Commission observed that the theft of the vehicle has not been denied by the Insurance Company. However, the claim of the respondent under the policy was repudiated by the Insurance Company solely on the ground that the vehicle though registered and insured as a private vehicle, at the time of theft, was being used as a taxi for carrying passengers on payment. So, the said vehicle was being used contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

8. The State Commission placed reliance on the decision of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Singh [2006 CTJ 221 (CP) (NCDRC)] wherein it was held by the National Commission that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis. Similar view was taken by the State Commission in Appeal No.1463 of 2004 (Track Way Securities & Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. & Others) decided on 23.3.2006. Relying on the said judgment, the State Commission observed that the claim of the respondent herein ought to be settled on non-standard basis and the complainant respondent was thus entitled to the 75% of the sum insured. Consequently, the State Commission directed the appellant herein to pay 75% of the amount i.e. Rs.4,83,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of the complaint till payment.

9. The appellant, aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, preferred a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the National Commission”). The National Commission, after considering the fact that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose, granted reimbursement on the non-standard basis as per the policy of the insurance company and observed that the order of the State Commission did not call for any interference.

10. The appellant, aggrieved by the impugned order of the National Commission, preferred this appeal before this court.

11. Pursuant to the notice issued by this court, the respondent has filed a comp