Delay of 35 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

Complainant/petitioner got his vehicle insured from the respondent for the period from 21.2.2006 to 20.2.2007.  The vehicle was sent by the petitioner for some personal work to Malda from Kasdol and during the journey, due to puncture in a tyre, the car overturned. Only the driver was there in the vehicle at that time.  The incident was reported to the police as well as the respondent – insurance company which appointed a surveyor and the investigator.  The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.68,100/- but the investigator found that the vehicle was used for hire or reward regularly for many months.  On the basis  of the report submitted by the investigator, the respondent repudiated the claim on the ground that the terms of the policy had been violated and, therefore, no claim was payable.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. 

District Forum dismissed the complaint and endorsed the stand taken by the respondent that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes in violation of the terms of the policy.

Being dissatisfied by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner preferred an appeal before State Commission.  State Commission came to the conclusion that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not being used for hire or reward  and if the insurance company had some material in support of the fact that in the past, the vehicle was being used for hire and reward, then in such case, claim of the petitioner could be settled on non-standard basis.  On the basis of this finding, the State Commission directed the respondent to settle the claim on non-standard basis and pay Rs.51,075/- being 75% of  Rs.68,100/-, which had been assessed by the surveyor.  Respondent was directed to pay the sum of Rs.51,075/- within a period of two months failing which the said amount was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Counsel for the petitioner states that respondent has accepted the award and deposited the sum of Rs.51,075/-. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is entitled to get interest on the awarded amount.  From the finding recorded by the State Commission, it seems that the vehicle was being used for hire purposes though on the date of accident it was not being used as such.  In view of this, the State Commission did not award the interest  as the State Commission was of the opinion that the vehicle was being used for hire purposes in the past. 

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest on the awarded amount.  Petitioner would be at liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs.51,075/- along with accrued interest thereon from the District Forum.   Dismissed.