Complainant/petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Petitioner/insured insured his Tata Sumo vehicle with the respondent insurance company for the period from 24.5.2002 to 23.5.2003 as a private car.  As per allegations made in the complaint, petitioner is an illiterate person and had purchased the said vehicle

-2-

for eking out his livelihood; that though the vehicle was a private vehicle, he was using it as a ‘Taxi’.  On 10.8.2002, the said vehicle was hired by one Devender Sharma for going to Badauin, U.P.  Kamal Singh, driver took Devender Sharma and drove to Badauin, but they never returned.  After waiting for a month, FIR was lodged and subsequently, a claim was lodged with the respondent insurance company which repudiated the same on the ground that though, the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle, it was being used as a Taxi in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the amount, for which the vehicle had been insured, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date the claim was lodged with it till realization.  The insurance company was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

-3-

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, respondent insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that since the vehicle was being run in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent insurance company was not required to compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered by him; that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.  Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside.  The complaint was ordered to be dismissed. 

Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal, (2008) 11 SCC 259” contends that in the case of ‘Theft of vehicle’, the breech of condition of the policy is not germane and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the petitioner.    As against this, submission of counsel for the respondent is that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the petitioner as the vehicle was being run as a Taxi in violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

          We find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.  In Nitin Khandelwal’s case (supra), the Supreme Court of India relying upon its earlier two decisions in “Jitendra Kumar V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another (2003) 6 SCC 420” and “National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh & Others (2004) 3 SCC 297”  held as under:

     “13. 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.

(Emphasis Supplied)

-5-

          In the present case, the vehicle had been stolen/snatched.  The vehicle was being used as a ‘Taxi’ in breech of condition of the policy.  The Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgment has held that in the case of ‘theft of vehicle’ breech of condition is not germane and the insurance company is liable to reimburse the insured of the loss suffered by him.  The point in issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court.  Respectfully following the law laid down by Supreme Court, we allow this Revision Petition, set aside the order of the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum.