Key Points: - The vehicle was damaged due to a mechanical fault, not due to the driver’s fault (!) (!) . - Insurance Company cannot repudiate a claim solely because the driver did not hold a valid licence if the driver did not contribute to the accident (mechanical fault) (!) . - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) empowers repudiation only where the accident is caused by the driver’s act or fault, not for damages from non-driver acts; thus does not aid repudiation in this case (!) . - The National Commission and State Commission’s findings on repudiation were set aside; the District Forum’s order directing payment was restored, and the appeal allowed with costs (!) (!) . - The judgment clarifies that fake licences renewed legitimately do not transfer validity, but does not permit repudiation of all claims solely for lack of a valid licence when the driver was not responsible for the incident (!) .

What is the permissibility of Insurance Company repudiating a motor vehicle insurance claim when the vehicle was damaged due to a mechanical fault and the driver did not hold a valid driving licence?

What is the scope of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in relation to claims arising from accidents not caused by the driver’s fault?

What are the rights of the insured owner to damages when fault lies in mechanical failure rather than driver conduct?