JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant/respondent is the owner of a Bolero vehicle bearing registration no. CG 095277, which he had insured with the petitioner company for the period from 20.07.2010 to 19.07.2011. On 30.10.2010, the vehicle was stolen from in front of the house of the complainant. The matter was reported to the Police Station Pipariya in District Kabeerdham on 31.10.2010 at 7.00 a.m. The information in this regard was also given to the Insurance Company. The claim of the complainant having repudiated by the Insurance Company, he filed a complaint before the District Forum at Kabeerdham in Chhattisgarh. Vide order dated 18.01.2013, the District Forum directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The company was also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. (2) Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner company preferred an appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Vide impugned order dated 20.01.2014, the said Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner company by modifying the order of the District forum and directing the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle, which come to Rs. 3,82,500/-. Rest of the order passed by the District Forum remained unaltered. Being dissatisfied by the views taken by the State Commission, the petitioner is before us, by way of this revision petition. (3) A perusal of the impugned order would show that the State Commission relying upon the decision of the Honle Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal 2009 (I) C.L.C.C. 56=IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) and the decision of this Commission in Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meera Bai Gabel (Appeal No. FA/12/270) decided on 01.02.2013 took the view that in such case, the Insurance Company was not entitled to repudiate the claim altogether and should settle that claim on non-standard basis. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of Honle Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC). (4) A perusal of the decision of the Honle Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal (supra) would show that the respondent, before the Apex Court, purchased a vehicle, which at the time it was stolen, was being used as a taxi, having been hired by four persons for going from Gwalior to Karoli. The vehicle had been insured for personal use. The claim was rejected by the Insurance Company on the ground that insured had committed a breach of the terms of the policy by using the vehicle for commercial use, though it had been misused for personal use. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim by the Insurance Company, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum at Gwalior. Upholding the plea taken by the Insurance Company, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of the complaint, he preferred an appeal before the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission relying upon the decision of this Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gian Singh in 2006 CTJ 221 (CP) (NCDRC), held that instead of altogether repudiating the claim, the Insurance Company should have settled it on non-standard basis and directed the said company to pay 75% of the sum insured to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the Insurance Company approached this Commission, by way of a revision petition. This Commission did not find any justification for interfering with the orders passed by the State Commission, which resulted in the Insurance Company taking up the matter to the Honle Supreme Court. It was contended on behalf of the complainant, that in a case of theft, the use of the vehicle is not germane. It was also pointed out that in the decision of the Honle Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai, (2006) 4 SCC 250, on which reliance placed by the Insurance Company, would not be applicable since that was the case of negligent driving at the time of the accident. The complainant also placed reliance upon the following view taken by the Honle Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2003 6 SCC 420:- "9. The question then is; can the Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the company, solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the accident did not hold a valid licence? The answer to this question, in our opinion, should be in the negative. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the Insurance Company in repudiating a claim where the driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. Section 149(2)(1)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act empowers the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim wherein the vehicle in question is damaged due to an accident to which driver of the vehicle who does not hold a valid driving licence is responsible in any manner. It does not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to acts to which the driver has not, in any manner, contributed i.e. damages incurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver. 10. It is the case of the parties that the fire in question which caused damage to the vehicle occurred due to mechanical failure and not due to any fault or act, or omission of the driver. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim of the appellant." The complainant further relied upon the following view taken by the Honle Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh in (2004) 3 SCC 297:- "89If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence." 12. In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. 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. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft. (5) Dismissing the appeal filed by the insurance Company, the Honle Apex Court in Nitin Khandelwal (supra), inter-alia, held as under:- 3. In the instant case, the State Commission allowed the claim only on non-standard basis, which has been upheld by the National Commission. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstance in the case, the law seems to be well settled that in case of theft of vehicle, nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into and the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis (6) Considering the authoritative Pronouncement of the Honle Apex Court in Nitin Khandelwal (supra), we have no doubt that in a case of theft, the use of the vehicle cannot be a ground to altogether reject the claim. The Insurance Company would not have refused the Insurance of the vehicle of such insurance as sought for using the vehicle as taxi, though it may have charged a higher premium. The interest of the Insurance Company, therefore, is well taken care of by directing it to pay, to the insured, on non-standard basis instead of paying the entire insured amount. (7) In Amalendu Sahoo (supra), the vehicle insured with the Oriental Insurance Company was stolen. The claim of the insurance was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle had been given on hire and such use was not used as per the terms of the policy. The District forum having dismissed the complaint, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission which also took a similar view. The complainant, therefore, approached this Commission by way of this revision petition. However, this Commission also dismissed the petition filed by him, which led to the insured knocking at the door of the Honle Apex Court. Allowing the appeal filed by the insured, the Honle Apex court, inter-alia, observed and held as under:- 1. 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. 14. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. 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. No. Description Percentage of settlement (i) Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity Deduct 3 yearsdifference in premium from the amount of claim or deduct 25% of claim amount, whichever is higher. (ii) Overloading of vehicles beyond licensed carrying capacity Pay claims not exceeding 75% of admissible claim (iii) Any other breach of warranty / condition of policy including limitation as to use Pay upto 75% of admissible claim. (8) It would be seen that the Honle Apex Court also relied upon the guidelines issued by General Insurance Corporation Ltd., while allowing the appeal filed by the insured. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said guidelines did not apply to the petitioner company, the same being applicable only to the Public Sector Undertakings, which are subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation Ltd. In our opinion, the decision of the Honle Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. case is not based entirely on the guidelines issue by the General Insurance Corporation Ltd., though it does take note of the said guidelines. In para 12 of the order, the Honle Apex Court expressly referred to its earlier decision in Nitin Khandelwal (supra) as well as to the decision of this Commission in Gian Singh (supra). Therefore, it cannot be said that had the guidelines of General Insurance Corporation Ltd. not been applicable, the decision would have been different. Moreover, in Nitin Khandelwal (supra), there was absolutely no reference to the guidelines issued by the General Insurance Corporation Ltd. and therefore, it cannot be said that the aforesaid decision of the Honle Apex Court was based upon the said guidelines. In these circumstances, we find no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the State Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (9) Since, we did not find any merit in the revision petition, we are not taking a view on the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. The same is dismissed as infructuous.