1. Insurance claim repudiation — Non-production of driving licence — Document destroyed in accident. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1921
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
K. Narasimha Reddy – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7694 of 2013
Decided On : 09-06-2022
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Celeste Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, for the Appellant; Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, for the Respondent
Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Celeste Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, for the Appellant; Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, for the Respondent
The court upheld the claim based on the circumstances where the Driving Licence was burnt in the accident and beyond the control of the insured to produce the document.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Driving Licence - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 130] - The court found that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the Driving Licence was not produced. However, the Surveyor's Report suggested that the Driving Licence was burnt in the accident, and it was beyond the control of the insured to produce the document. The court upheld the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in allowing the claim.
Fact of the Case:
The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the Driving Licence was not produced, despite the Surveyor's Report suggesting that it was burnt in the accident. The District Forum and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no error was committed by the District Forum and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in allowing the claim, and dismissed the civil appeal.
Issues: Repudiation of claim based on non-production of Driving Licence, Surveyor's Report, Error in decision by lower forums
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the decision of the lower forums, considering the circumstances where the Driving Licence was burnt in the accident and beyond the control of the insured to produce the document.
Final Decision: The civil appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Repudiation of claim based on failure to produce driving licence versus evidence of document's destruction. (Para 2 )
3. Driving licence was burnt in the accident as per surveyor's report, rendering production beyond the insured's control. (Para 2 )
4. Insurance claims cannot be repudiated for non-production of documents that are beyond the control of the insured due to destruction in the accident. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Civil appeal dismissed — Order allowing the claim upheld. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Can an insurance claim be repudiated for non-production of a driving licence if the document was destroyed in the accident?
No. If concurrent findings and a surveyor's report indicate the driving licence was burnt in the accident, the insurance company cannot insist on its production as it is beyond the control of the insured. (Para 2 )
7. What evidence may be relied upon to establish that a required document was destroyed in an accident?
The court may rely on concurrent findings from lower forums and the Surveyor's Report to establish that a document, such as a driving licence, was destroyed in the accident. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. From the material on record, it emerges that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the Driving Licence was not produced. However, it is required to be noted that there are concurrent findings and even the Surveyor's Report also suggests that the Driving Licence was burnt in the accident. Still, the Insurance Company insisted for producing the document, which was beyond the control of the insured.
3. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that no error has been committed by the District Forum as well as by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [in short, 'NCDRC'] in allowing the claim.
4. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the NCDRC. The civil appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. Pending interlocutory application(s), if is/are disposed of.
