IMPORTANT POINT
It is well settled that insurance contract is a species of commercial transaction and it must be construed like any other contract as per its own terms and conditions.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Rajasthan Jaipur dated 17.04.2012 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent complainant and allowed the complaint.

2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that motor vehicle no. RJ 23 T 0765 belonging to Sunil Jhakhar son of the respondent complainant was insured with the petitioner company. On 26.01.2009 at about 12.00 in the night, aforesaid vehicle was hit by a bus on road from Bhadhadar to Sikar. As a consequence, Sunil Jhakhar as also the passengers, namely, Mukesh, Sachin, Prakash, Parmeshwar and Dharmender suffered fatal injuries and the vehicle was damaged. The petitioner company was intimated. A surveyor was appointed who assessed the damage caused to the vehicle at Rs.1,94,950/—. The insurance claim preferred by the respondent complainant, however, was repudiated by the petitioner company on the ground that at the time of incident, insured vehicle was being plied without a route permit and fitness certificate. This led to the filing of the consumer complaint.

3. District Forum Sikar on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner was justified in repudiating the claim because the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and dismissed the complaint.

4. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent preferred an appeal. The State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.1,94,950/- minus Rs.500/- as excess clause. Respondent was also directed to pay 9% interest on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum besides a compensation of Rs.25000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- was awarded.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is based upon the incorrect appreciation of law and fact. It is argued that the State Commission while accepting the appeal against the dismissal of complaint has failed to appreciate that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was being plied without a valid permit and fitness certificate which is not only the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy but also provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is contended that in view of the aforesaid fundamental breach of condition of insurance contract, the petitioner was justified in repudiating the insurance claim.

6. Learned Shri J.M.Bari, Advocate on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. It is argued that although the vehicle was being plied without permit and fitness certificate, it is of no consequence because it cannot be termed as a breach which is fundamental to the accident particularly when it is established on record that the accident was not caused because of any fault of driver in question but due to the fault of the driver of the truck which dashed into the insured vehicle. In the alternative, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the insured violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, then also, the petitioner is under obligation to settle the claim on non—standard basis. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal in Appeal No. (Civil) 3409 of 2008 decided on 08.05.2008, Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2010 decided on 25.03.2010 as also judgment in the matter of G.Kothainachiar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.1

7. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to have a look at the law on the subject. In the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (supra), the insurance claim f