JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. This is an admitted fact that the complainant-petitioner was driving the private car as taxi and the taxi was taken away forcibly by his passengers. The respondent-Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited repudiated the claim of the petitioner in the sum of Rs.4 lakh plus Rs.4450/- on the above said ground. 2. The District Forum accepted the complaint but the State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the respondent-opposite party and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner-complainant has approached this Commission. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-opposite party vehemently argued that there is not only breach of the condition enshrined in the policy but it also violation of the general exception i.e. any accidental loss damage and/or liability caused sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle insured herein is (a) being used otherwise than in accordance with the ‘Limitations as to Use’. 5. He has also invited our attention to the limitations which appear on the documents titled as ‘Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited issuing office’ Ludhiana BO Private Car Insurance Package Policy. At the foot of the document, there is another heading ‘Limitation as to use (a) hire or reward’. He contends that under the circumstances, the repudiation is valid and the petitioner-complainant is not entitled to any compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards latest authority by the Apex court in case of Amlendu Sahu vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 25.3.2010 in civil appeal No. 2703 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No. 11227 of 2009 wherein it was held as under:- “10. It is not in dispute that the appellant has taken a comprehensive insurance policy nor is it in dispute that the accident took place during the subsistence of the policy. The policy was, therefore, valid on the date of the accident. 11. What is disputed by the insurance company is that the vehicle was not used for personal use but was used by way of being hired, though no payment for hiring charges was proved. However, according to the insurance company, by using the vehicle on hire, the appellant had violated the terms of the insurance policy and on that basis the insurance company was within its right to repudiate the claim. 12. Reference in this case may be made to the decision of the National Commission rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Singh reported in 2006 CTJ 221(CP) (NCDRC). In that decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) it has been held 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 a non-standard basis. The said decision of the National Commission has been referred to by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Nitin Khandelwal reported in 2008(7) SCALE 351. In paragraph 13 of the judgment in the case of Nitin Khandelwal(supra) this Court held: ‘The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.’ 13. In the case of Nitin Khandelwal(supra) the State Commission allowed 75% of the claim of the claimant on non-standard basis. The said order was upheld by the National Commission and this Court refused to interfere with the decision of the National Commission. 14. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak reported in (2006) CPJ 144 (NC). In that case also the question was, whether the insurance company can repudiate the claims in a case where the vehicle carrying passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving licence and met with an accident. While granting claim on non-standard basis the National Commission set out in its judgment the guidelines issued by the insurance company about settling all such non-standard claims. The said guidelines are set out below Sr. Description Percentage of No. settlement 7 (i) Under declaration Deduct 3 years’ of licensed difference in carrying capacity premium from the amount of claim Or deduct 25% of claim amount whichever is higher. (ii) Overloading of Pay claims not vehicles beyond exceeding 75% of licensed carrying admissible claim capacity. (iii) Any other breach Pay upto 75% of warranty/admissible claim. Condition of policy including limitations as to use. 15. From a perusal of the aforesaid guidelines, it is clear that one of the cases where 75% claim of the admissible claim was settled was where condition of policy including limitation as to use was breached. 16. In the instant case the entire stand of the insurance company is that claimant has used the vehicle for hire and in the course of that there has been an accident. Following the aforesaid guidelines, this Court is of the opinion that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. 17. For the reasons stated, we cannot affirm the order of the fora below. We direct the respondent insurance company to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/- even though compensation claimed is Rs.5,00,000/-. 18. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the said sum is to be paid to the appellant by the insurance company without any interest within a period of six weeks from date. However, if the insurance company delays the aforesaid payment beyond six weeks, then this amount will carry an interest of 9% from the date of the expiry of the period of six weeks till the date of actual payment.” In view of the above discussion, we hereby partly accept the revision petition and direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization. The revision petition stands disposed of. | 
