Present Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 21.3.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. whereby the State Commission has reversed the order passed by the District Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar, NOIDA and dismissed the complaint.  Petitioner is the owner of a Maruti Van bearing No.DL-2CL-9233, which was insured with the respondent insurance company for Rs.2,20,000/-.  The policy was valid up to 7.12.2000.  The said vehicle was stolen on 11.7.2001.  Petitioner lodged a claim with the respondent, which was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose.  Repudiation led to the filing of the complaint.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 10%.  Direction was issued to pay the amount within one month failing which the awarded amount was to carry interest at the rate of 12%.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, after analyzing the evidence, found that the vehicle was in fact being used for commercial purpose in violation of the terms of the policy.  Based on this finding, the State Commission reversed the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

          Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice a judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal – (2008) 11 SCC 259, in which the facts were similar to the facts in the present case.  In the said case also, the vehicle was being used as a taxi and the claim filed by the insured was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose in violation of the condition of the policy.  Supreme Court, in para-13 of its order has observed that in case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not the germane.  Insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insured.  In the said case, the claim was settled on non-standard basis as the complainant in the said case had not preferred an appeal.  State Commission, in the said case, had directed the insurance company to pay 75% of the claim on non-standard basis against which the complainant had not filed an appeal. 

In view of the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which we respectfully follow, we allow the Revision Petition and set aside the order passed by the State Commission.  Order of the District Forum is restored except that rate of interest applicable would be 9% instead of 10/12%. 

          Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

          Respondent insurance company is directed to make the payment within a period of 8 weeks from today, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to execute the order by filing Execution Petition under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.