Claim rejected alleging “commercial use” of your private vehicle? The breach must connect to the loss.
A private car allegedly used for hire, a permit condition allegedly breached — and the whole claim rejected. The law asks a sharper question: did the breach have anything to do with the loss? Often it did not. Here's how to challenge it.
Reviewed by the BimaHaq Insurance Grievance Desk — BimaHaq's in-house insurance-grievance team — specialists in IRDAI grievance redressal, the Insurance Ombudsman process, and policyholder rights in India. · Last reviewed 2026-08-31
A limitation-as-to-use breach does not automatically defeat a motor claim. The insurer must prove the breach — that the vehicle was actually being used for hire or reward, not merely that it could have been — and the breach must bear on the loss. In National Insurance v. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) the Supreme Court held that where a vehicle allegedly used in breach of the policy was stolen, the breach was 'not germane' to the theft, and it left the award below undisturbed. Note carefully what it did not do: it said in terms that it was not deciding whether settling on a non-standard basis was justified, because the claimant had not appealed that part. So do not treat 75% as the answer. That figure comes from the insurers' own guideline, which reads 'pay upto 75% of admissible claim' — a ceiling, not a rate — and in Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance (2010) the Court applied that guideline to award a consolidated ₹2.5 lakh on a ₹5 lakh claim. What the cases establish is narrower and more useful to you: an insurer cannot repudiate in toto for a breach that had nothing to do with the loss.
Why insurers reject on this ground
The insurer says your privately-registered vehicle was being used commercially — carrying passengers for hire, goods for reward, or app-based work — in breach of the policy's 'limitation as to use', or that a permit or fitness requirement was not met. It treats the breach as a complete defence to the whole claim.
When you can challenge it
Make the insurer prove the use, not presume it: an investigator's assertion, a co-passenger's presence, or the vehicle's registration category is not proof that this trip was for hire or reward. Then test the nexus — a technical or unrelated breach does not defeat a claim whose loss it did not cause: a theft has nothing to do with a limitation on use, which is the logic of Nitin Khandelwal — there the vehicle was allegedly on a taxi trip when it was stolen, and the Supreme Court still held the breach was not germane to the loss. In a theft or parked-vehicle case that reasoning supports asking for the claim in full, not for a discount — the Court in Khandelwal never endorsed the 75% figure, it simply had no appeal before it on that point. Even where use in breach is established, put the non-standard settlement line of cases in your grievance — total repudiation is frequently the wrong outcome, and 75% is the ceiling of the insurers' own guideline rather than the going rate. Be realistic about the harder cases: a loss occurring in the course of the commercial use itself, with passengers on board for hire, is a genuinely contested claim.
How to fight this rejection
Demand the evidence of commercial use
Ask the insurer, in writing, for the investigator's report and the specific evidence that the vehicle was being used for hire or reward — at the time of the loss, not in general. Statements recorded without your knowledge deserve scrutiny; ask for copies.
Establish the actual use at the time of loss
Set out who was in the vehicle, why, and the purpose of the trip, with supporting statements. Family, friends, or shared-fuel car-pooling is generally not 'hire or reward' — and a theft or a parked-vehicle loss has no connection to use at all.
Invoke the non-standard settlement cases
Cite National Insurance v. Nitin Khandelwal (2008): a breach of the use limitation that is not germane to the loss does not defeat the claim. Ask for settlement rather than repudiation — and where the loss was a theft, ask for it in full, because that is exactly the breach the Court called 'not germane'. If the insurer offers a percentage, note that its own guideline says 'pay upto 75%', a maximum, so treat 75% as the top of the range and argue upward from any lower offer.
Raise a written grievance with the insurer's GRO
Send a dated grievance to the insurer's Grievance Redressal Officer setting out why the rejection is wrong. The insurer must acknowledge it immediately and resolve it within 14 days.
Escalate to IRDAI on Bima Bharosa
If it isn't resolved in time or the reply is unsatisfactory, register the complaint on IRDAI's Bima Bharosa portal.
Take it to the Insurance Ombudsman
Free, and the award binds the insurer. The Ombudsman can award up to ₹50 lakh, and the Council for Insurance Ombudsmen applies that same figure to the claim value at filing — so above it, expect to be refused at intake and take the dispute to the consumer commission instead. File within one year of receiving the insurer's rejection — or, if it never replied, within one year of one month after you sent your representation.
Common questions
Can the insurer reject my claim because my private car was used commercially?
Not automatically. The insurer must prove the vehicle was actually being used for hire or reward, and the breach must be connected to the loss. The Supreme Court has held that where the breach was not germane to the loss — a theft, for instance — the claim cannot be rejected outright on that ground. In a theft case that reasoning supports asking to be paid in full, not at a discount.
What is a non-standard settlement in motor insurance?
It is settlement at a reduced amount where the insured breached a policy condition but the breach did not cause or contribute to the loss. The percentage comes from the insurers' own guidelines, which say 'pay upto 75% of admissible claim' — a maximum, not a standard rate. The Supreme Court has not fixed a figure: in National Insurance v. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) it expressly declined to decide whether non-standard settlement was justified, and in Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance (2010) it awarded a consolidated ₹2.5 lakh on a ₹5 lakh claim. What both cases establish is that total repudiation is disproportionate for a breach unconnected to the loss.
Is car-pooling or occasionally dropping a paying colleague 'commercial use'?
Sharing fuel costs in a genuine car-pool is generally not 'hire or reward' in the policy sense, and one-off context matters — but regular, paid, app-mediated carriage of passengers looks like commercial use. The dispute is factual: what this vehicle was actually doing, at the time of this loss, on the insurer's actual evidence.
See the full escalation ladder for a rejected claim, or use a free complaint-letter template.
This guide is general information about the insurance-grievance process in India, not legal advice, and figures (timelines, monetary limits, jurisdiction) can change — verify against the official sources linked above before you rely on them.
What BimaHaq costs, if you want help with this:
Fixed fees, never a share of your claim. No outcome is guaranteed. See all prices