IMPORTANT POINT
There is liability of insurer only when terms of policy are strictly followed.

P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member—Heard Mr. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ashutosh Marathe Advocate for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award passed on 21/05/2010 by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint No. 473/2008, Mr. Deepak Kishan Goradia v. IFFCO Tokio Genera, Insurance Co. Ltd. By allowing the complaint partly, opponent/Insurance Company has been directed to pay

Rs. 1,26,237/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from

08/10/2007 till realization of the entire amount and has been further directed to pay costs of proceeding of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. As such Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

3. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-

The complainant owned a car bearing No. MH-04-CJ-5692. It was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. On 14/09/2007 while he was travelling by his car, a car ahead of his own car stopped abruptly and driver of the complainant’s car tried to take his car to the right side and in the process the complainant’s can dashed against taxi which was coming from opposite side. Complainant’s car was extensively damaged and complainant got it repaired by paying Rs.1,26,237/- and lodged claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that driver of the vehicle has not having valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, complainant has filed consumer complaint in the District Forum.

4. Opponent/Insurance Company filed written version and admitted that the complaint’s car was insured with it and policy was effective. Opponent pleaded that driver of the complaint’s car was not holding valid driving licence as his licence had expired on 09/08/2007 and licence came to be renewed only on 20.09.2007 after 6 days of the accident. So, at the time of accident, driver of the complainant’s car was not holding valid and effective driving licence and on that ground claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company. However, District Forum allowed the complaint relying on the judgment of the National Commission Rajasthan Housing Board and Anr. v. Pramod Shankar Pareekh.1 In that case it was found that driver licence was fake driving licence and District Forum allowed the complaint, State Commission however, dismissed the complaint by allowing the appeal and held that Insurance Company was not liable to reimburse the persons who are having fake driving licence. However, National Commission relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of United India Insurance Company v. Lahru and others2 held that the Insurance Companies cannot expect the owners to make the inquiries as to the validity of the driving licence. The National Commission also relied or the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.3 in which it was held that the insurer is required to establish willful breach of condition on the part of insured. In this case, complainant’s driver was holding effective driving licence till 09.08.2007, but not on the date of accident. No doubt he was having effective driving lincence on 20.09.2007. If the driving licence is renewed within One month from the expiry of the previous driving licence, there is a grace period and the period covered under the grace period is taken to be having driving licence to the holder who has renewed the driving licence within grace period of one month. In this case, within one month grace period, driver had not renewed his driving licence. He should have renewed his driving licence on. or before 08.09.2007, within the grace period available, but he renewed his driving licence ultimately or 20.09.2007 beyond the grace period and therefore, it may be held that the driver of the complainant was not having effective driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, insurance claim was rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company/appellant herein. The rulings relie