Heard learned counsels for parties, on admission. Factual matrix are that pretending bonafide, two persons secured lift in the Truck of petitioner – company, comprehensively insured with respondent – Corporation and getting driver unconscious on drink of juice, whisked away with the vehicle. FIR came to be lodged with police not before lapse of 59 days when police on investigation submitted ‘untraced report’. Claim lodged with insurance company was repudiated holding violation of terms and conditions of policy in carrying unauthorized passengers in a vehicle registered for commercial purposes. Aggrieved with repudiation of claim, consumer complaint was filed with District Forum which, having over-ruled contentions raised on behalf of respondent – insurance company, while accepting complaint, granted substantial relief to petitioner company. However, appeal preferred by insurance company bore desired result, finding of District Forum having been reversed. Now it was turn of petitioner – company to challenge order of State Commission. Contention raised on behalf of petitioner – company was that this being a case of theft, simplicitor of vehicle, breach of policy condition was not material for consideration. Per contra, contention raised on behalf of insurance company was that since petitioner company carries on business for commercial consideration, in view of amended provisions of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of CP Act, 1986, petitioner company had not qualified to be a ‘consumer’ to agitate issue before consumer fora. Insurance company, in view of belated registration of police case, also, suspected genuineness of claim of petitioner company. As has been case of petitioner, after driver was offered drug with a juice by two unauthorized persons who were given lift in vehicle, he became unconscious and on getting senses, he found himself in a hospital. In given situation, he was expected to immediately take recourse to public authority, but as has been noticed, even police was approached after lapse of about two months. Though giving lift to unauthorized passengers be in violation of terms and conditions of policy pertaining to limitation as to use of vehicle, that having been registered as a commercial vehicle, that is not an issue germane for adjudication in the matter where theft of an insured vehicle was in question. Inspiration can be drawn from a decision of National Commission in RP No. 643/2005 – National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. JP Leasing & Finance Private Ltd. Inspiration can also be drawn from a decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal reported in 2008 ACJ 2035. We feel tempted to put on record, the extract of relevant record of observations made by Hon’ble Apext court. “In the case in hand the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of the vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The appellant – insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle”. In view of aforesaid narration of facts and also consideration of issue involved, we fully endorse the finding of District Forum, making insurance company answerable to indemnify the losses suffered by respondent. Finding of State Commission is accordingly set aside and resultantly, revision petition succeeds but with no order as to cost.