it is only when the violation of the terms and <br /> conditions of the contract is fundamental <br /> cause of the accident then perhaps the <br /> insurance company would be entitled<br /> to repudiate the claim according to us,<br /> -7-<br /> whether the vehicle was being driven as<br /> private passenger vehicle or as a taxi,<br /> such violation was not fundamental <br /> cause of accident or had any nexus with <br /> the accident. The apex court "B.V. Nagaraju<br /> Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 (2)<br /> Consumer Protection Cases 3". While dealing<br /> with a case, where a truck had met with<br /> an accident and the claim was denied by<br /> the insurance company on the ground<br /> that vehicle was carrying passenger <br /> unauthorizedly at the time of accident<br /> observed that technically there may be <br /> violation of the terms of the contract but <br /> in such circumstances the Exclusion Terms<br /> of the Policy must be read down so as to serve<br /> the main purpose of the policy. It was held that<br /> in such circumstances, the assured must be<br /> indemnified. Indemnification is of the loss to the <br /> vehicle because of the accident which occurred <br /> nor vehicle was being plied as a taxi."<br /> Therefore, judging the facts and evidence on the record in <br /> the light of well settled proposition of law referred to above, we are of the opinion that firstly the Toyota Qualis was not proved to be used for commercial purpose at the time of accident and even if the private vehicle used as taxi cannot be construed as fundamental cause of accident or had any nexus with the accident so as amount to breach <br /> -8-<br /> of terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.C3 ..<br /> 8. Apropos the quantum of insurance claim based on the bill Ex.C2 about estimated costs of repair or Rs.1,21,881/- of ANR Motors Pvt. Ltd.. It is not disputed that Insurance Company has also deputed Surveyor and Loss Assessor Vikas Sikka who submitted survey report dated 2/5/07 Ex.R5 and assessed net loss of Rs.32,792.81 considering the pros and cons of the case . It is also settled principle of law that Surveyor and Loss Assessor appointed by the Insurance Company was duly licensed one and as such no bias can be inferred therein against the complainant or favourable to the Insurance Company. The surveyor report Ex.R5 inspires credibility as clearly held by the Hon'ble National commission in a case reported as S.A.Bhagwan Seth Vs. United India Insurance Company 2006 CTJ Page 852 by our National Commission that the surveyor appointed under the Insurance Act is considered to be an independent loss assessor and therefore, is authorized to inspect the insured property and assessed the loss caused to it<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we accept the claim of the complainant partly to the extent of Rs.32,792.81 based on the surveyor report of the loss caused to the vehicle alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 1/8/07 till its realisation and further award monetary compensation to the extent of Rs.5000/- alongwith cost of litigation of Rs.1000/- which would be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order otherwise it be recovered in accordance with law. Complainant is directed to deposit the salvage with the Insurance company , if not deposited <br /> -9-<br /> earlier , within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order. <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 14.2.2008 Member President.