The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the complainant to the assessed market value of the vehicle with reduced interest due to the bonafide repudiation of the claim by the insurance company.

Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—This matter has been remanded by the National Commission vide order dated 22.5.2002 in Appeal No. 181 of 1996, Dilip Vashishth v. The Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., preferred against the order dated 7.1.1995 passed in Original Case No. 76 of 1994 by this Commission, wherein the National Commission observed thus :

“We have also gone through the order of the State Commission. We are of the opinion that notwithstanding the report of the investigator and the conditions of the policy, the question is whether the vehicle was in use at the material time. The undisputed evidence is that the vehicle was parked at the time of theft. The other undisputed evidence is that it was being driven by the insured himself prior to parking the vehicle. When the vehicle was taken away by thieves it was lying parked and not being put to any use, whether domestic or non-domestic. For that reason the said exclusion clause will not be attracted. It is not necessary for us to go deep into the other detailed evidence led before the State Commission. Suffice it to say that the said exclusion clause is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the vehicle at the time of theft was not being driven by anyone but had been parked at the said Atalram Sindhi Dharmashala which was being visited by the insured himself who had driven the vehicle to that place himself. It was also contended that the insured was carrying a lot of books in the stolen vehicle. There is no bar of any books being carried inside the vehicle under the terms of the policy. In the face of these facts we consider that it was not necessary for the State Commission to relegate the party to Civil Court and make them undergo the ordeal for years before getting any redressal of their grievance pending since 1992. In the circumstances, we remand the case to the State Commission to determine the amount to be awarded as compensation after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law. The first appeal is disposed of in the above terms.”

2. In view of the order of remand the controversy which has to be adjudicated by this Commission rests only on quantum.

3. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the Surveyor M. Sunil & Company vide report dated 8th November, 1992 has assessd the market value of Rs. 1,10,000/-, Maruti Van, bearing registration No. MP 09 A 0477, comprehensively insured for the estimated insured value of Rs. 1,70,000/- with the opposite party for the period 14.1.1992 to 13.1.1993. The complainant has been deprived of his due money, therefore, the amount assessed by the Surveyor be ordered to be paid with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. with costs which would satisfy the grievance of the complainant as the complainant has been fighting since 1993 and had to go to the National Commission.

4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the vehicle was being used against the terms and conditions of the policy as to the limitations to the use as the vehicle was registered for private use but at the time of occurrence the vehicle was in use for commercial purpose, i.e., as taxi, therefore, the amount be ordered to be paid treating the same as non-standard claim in view of the decision of the National Commission in the case of Kesarben v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2000) CPJ 36 (NC) and interest be not awarded as the claim was repudiated after due application of mind.

5. After hearing learned Counsels for the parties, the submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite party cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the National Commission and the complaint has to be decided on the specific issue of quantum. In view of this, as the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company has assessed, the market value of the vehicle at Rs. 1,10,000/-, the complainant would be entitled to that amount with interest.

6. However, the interest as claimed @ 12% p.a., in the facts of the case, cannot