On 27.9.2003, he had sent his vehicle to bring his children from Jaipur.
The appellant, aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, preferred a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the National Commission .
The respondent, aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, filed an appeal before the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the State Commission .
According to the appellant, the respondent had violated the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, rejected the claim.
The appellant, aggrieved by the impugned order of the National Commission, preferred this appeal before this companyrt.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.20902 of 2006 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Versus Nitin Khandelwal Respondent JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. Leave granted.
However, the claim of the respondent under the policy was repudiated by the Insurance Company solely on the ground that the vehicle though registered and insured as a private vehicle, at the time of theft, was being used as a taxi for carrying passengers on payment.
Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Others decided on 23.3.2006.
Consequently, the State Commission directed the appellant herein to pay 75 of the amount i.e. Rs.4,83,000/ with interest 6 from the date of the companyplaint till payment.
The State Commission observed that the theft of the vehicle has number been denied by the Insurance Company.
The National Commission, after companysidering the fact that the vehicle was used for companymercial purpose, granted reimbursement on the number standard basis as per the policy of the insurance companypany and observed that the order of the State Commission did number call for any interference.
The respondent filed a companyplaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Gwalior, M.P. hereinafter referred to as the District Forum .
Similar view was taken by the State Commission in Appeal No.1463 of 2004 Track Way Securities Finance Pvt.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
So, the said vehicle was being used companytrary to the terms and companyditions of the insurance policy.
The appellants version was that the vehicle was being used as a taxi and the four passengers had hired the vehicle for going from Gwalior to Karoli and those passengers, on the way, snatched the vehicle from the driver.
According to the District Forum, the respondent had violated the terms and companyditions of the insurance policy and that the appellant Insurance Company was justified in rejecting the claim of the respondent.
The vehicle was insured for personal use and it was being used by the respondent as a taxi.
3409 OF 2008.
Relying on the said judgment, the State Commission observed that the claim of the respondent herein ought to be settled on number standard basis and the companyplainant respondent was thus entitled to the 75 of the sum insured.
2638 of 2006.
Thereafter, on 2.10.2003, the respondent filed an insurance claim, which was rejected by the Insurance Company.
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21st September, 2006 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the National Commission in R. P. No.
The State Commission placed reliance on the decision of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Singh 2006 CTJ 221 CP NCDRC wherein it was held by the National Commission that in a case of violation of companydition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on number standard basis.
HR 18 8743 on 28.5.2003.
The report was lodged by the driver at the police station and the appellant Insurance Company was informed of the same.
On the way, some unknown people stopped the vehicle, tied the driver and dumped him on the way and snatched away the vehicle.
Pursuant to the numberice issued by this companyrt, the respondent has filed a companyprehensive companynter affidavit.
