Jitendra Kumar vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

The appellant in this appeal is challenging the decision of

the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New

Delhi (National Commission) whereby the National Commission

dismissed his revision petition filed against the judgment and order

of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar

(State Commission) which in turn had allowed the appeal filed by

the respondent-Insurance Company before it. While allowing the

said appeal, the State Commission set aside an order of the District

Consumer Redressal Forum, Jehanabad (District Forum) whereby

the District Forum had allowed a claim of the appellant and

directed the respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of

Rs.80,000/- as damages suffered by the appellant due to the loss of

his motor vehicle and further directed the payment of Rs.5,000/- as

compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation.

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

The appellant was the owner of the Maruti Van bearing

Registration No.BR-2/5667 which was insured with the

respondent-Insurance Company. It is the case of the appellant that

on 25.4.1996 at about 9.30 p.m. while returning from Gaya to

Jehanabad the vehicle in question caught fire due to mechanical

reasons and due to the said fire the said vehicle was burnt beyond

repair. An intimation of this accidental fire was made to the

respondent-Insurance Company on 14.5.1996. With the said

intimation, the appellant also lodged a claim with the respondent

for payment of damages. The Insurance Company as per its letter

dated 10th of December, 1996 repudiated the said claim of the

appellant solely on the ground that the driver did not have a valid

licence at the time of the incident in question. The District Forum

after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the accidental

fire due to which the appellant's vehicle got damaged was not

caused due to any act of the appellant's driver but was due to

mechanical fault, therefore, it held the contention of the Insurance

Company that the appellant's driver did not hold a valid licence

could not be a ground to repudiate the claim, accordingly, ordered

the payment of damage, compensation and cost as stated herein

above.

In an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the State

Commission reversed the said judgment holding that the driver of

the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence and his original

licence was a fake which was inadvertently renewed by the District

Transport Officer, therefore, following the judgment of the

National Commission reported in 1996 (1) CPR 81 (NC) (Raj

Kumar and Anr. vs. New India Assurance Company & Ors.) held

that the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim

of the appellant.

A revision petition filed by the appellant against the said

judgment of the National Commission came to be dismissed by the

National Commission by the impugned order wherein the National

Commission placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the

case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Shimla vs. Kamla &

Ors. (2001 4 SCC 342).

As stated, it is against the above judgment of the National

Commission the appellant is before us.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

National Commission and the State Commission erred in coming

to the conclusion that holding of valid driving licence was a

condition precedent to claim any damage from the Insurance

Company even when the accident in question has occurred due to

no fault/or act of the driver. He submitted that the judgment of this

Court in the case of New India Assurance Company (supra) has no

application to the facts of this case.

We have heard learned counsel for the respondents who has

supported the orders of the State Commission as well as that of the

National Commission. So far as the facts of this case are

concerned, there is hardly any dispute, therefore, we can safely

proceed on the basis that the vehicle in question was damaged due

to a mechanical fault and no fault of the driver. For the purpose of

argument, we may also proceed on the basis that the driver of the

car did not have a valid driving licence. 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 the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the

accident did not hold a valid licence ? 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 driver of the

vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. Section

149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles 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.

We notice that in the impugned order National Commission

has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of

New India Assurance Company (supra) which, in our opinion, has

no bearing on this aspect of the case in hand. This Court in the said

case held that the fake driving licence when renewed genuinely,

does not acquire the validity of a genuine licence. There can be no

dispute on this proposition of law. But then the judgment of this

Court in the case of New India Assurance Company (supra) does

not go to the extent of laying down a law which empowers the

Insurance Company to repudiate any and every claim of the

insured (appellant) merely because he had engaged a driver who

did not have a valid licence. In the instant case, it is the case of the

parties that 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

Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim of the

appellant.

For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds, the

impugned judgments of the National Commission and the State

Commission are set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.

The appeal is allowed with costs.