Petitioner was the complainant no. 1 before the District Forum, where he alongwith the wife of deceased owner of the vehicle, i.e., complainant no. 2 had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Insurance Company. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, one Bhajan Lal, late husband of the second complainant, had purchased a car from the original owner, namely, one Shri Suresh Kumar. Admittedly, the registration of the vehicle was transferred in the name of Bhajan Lal whereas the ‘cover-note’, in respect of the same vehicle on behalf of the Insurance Company was issued on 19.08.97. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was stolen on 15.08.97. When the vehicle was stolen a claim was filed before the Insurance Company, it was repudiated on the ground that the complainant has no ‘insurable-interest’. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed by the complainants before the District Forum, which allowed the complaint in following terms:- “1. The respondent is ordered to pay Rs.3,17,000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. to the complainants with effect from the filing of the claim from its realization. The complainant no. 1 is directed to prepare a statement of account accepted to the complainants no. 2 to 11 and then deduct the amount to which he himself is entitled and pay the balance amount to the complainants no. 2 to 11 on receiving the payments from the respondents. 2. The respondent is also ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.” Aggrieved by this order, the respondent insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and order passed by the District Forum was set aside, hence, this revision petition before us. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material on record. Basic facts are not in dispute that the insured vehicle was originally in the name of one Suresh Kumar. Insurance cover had not been transferred in favour of the purchaser, i.e., Late Mr. Bhajan Lal when the vehicle was stolen on 15.08.97. Admittedly, the cover note was issued in favour of Late Mr. Bhajan Lal on 19.08.97. It is also not much in dispute that the said vehicle, which was registered as a private vehicle and the same was being plied as a commercial purpose for carrying passenger taxi. Based on these grounds the State Commission has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and complaint was dismissed. After perusal of material on record we find that as far as the first issue is concerned, it is squarely covered under Regulation 10 of India Motor Tariff (IMT) effective from 1.4.90, reads as follows:- “10. Transfers On transfer of a vehicle the benefits under the policy in force on the date of transfer shall automatically accrue to the new owner. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the bonus or subjected to malus already shown on the policy, the recovery of the differences between his entitlement (if any) and that shown on the policy shall be waived till the expiry of the policy. However, on expiry and / or termination of the existing policy the transferee will be eligible for Bonus or subjected to Malus as per his own entitlement If the transferee wants to change the policy in his name it may be done on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. If a new certificate of Insurance in the transferee’s name is required, his old certificate of insurance must be surrendered and a fee of Rs.15/- must be collected. If the old certificate of insurance is not surrendered, a proper declaration must be taken from the transferee before a new certificate of insurance is issued.” These IMT regulations were in vogue till 30.06.2002 thus, we are not in doubt that IMT regulation 10 will have applicability in this case, meaning thereby on transfer of vehicle, the policy automatically stood transferred in favour of the new owner. As far as the second leg of argument, on which appeal was allowed by the State Commission, relates to violation of condition of the Policy with regard to use of a private vehicle as a taxi. When we go through the ‘Claim-Settlement-Guidelines’ issued by General Insurance Co. (G.I.C), we find that this case is squarely covered under clause F.1 of the guidelines, which reads as under:- “Any other breach of Warranty policy condition including limitations as to use. Pay 75% of the admissible claim.” Thus, in our view, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim in view of the guidelines issued by GIC for settlement of such claims on non-standard basis and should have settled the claim on non-standard basis by awarding 75% of the insured value after providing for depreciation of the use for 8½ months as the policy was taken on 1.1.97 and the vehicle was stolen on 15.08.97. In the aforementioned circumstances, the insurance company is directed to pay 75% of the insured amount arrived at after deducting 15% of the insured amount, on account of depreciation alongwith, interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation. The petitioner in this case is directed to handover all the documents like, registration certificate, etc. as required by the Insurance Company. Insurance company is directed to pay the ‘arrived-at’ amount, as discussed earlier within 6 weeks, after receipt of the requisite documents, the list of which shall be made available to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order. The revision petition stands allowed in above terms.