IMPORTANT POINT
When complainant failed to prove that deceased was holding an effective driving licence at the time of accident, State Commission was absolutely justified in rejecting complaint.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—Late Shri Gopal Singh, husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioners Nos.2 & 3 took an insurance policy from the respondent-National Insurance Co. Ltd. in respect of a scooter owned by him. Besides damage to/loss of the scooter the said policy covered the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- in case he was to die while driving the insured scooter. On 12-05-2004, during currency of the insurance policy taken by him, the insured met with an accident and died. The petitioners lodged a claim with the insurance company for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of the insurance policy taken by the deceased. The claim, however, was repudiated by the insurance company solely on the ground that the deceased did not have a driving license at the times he met with an accident.

2. Being aggrieved from the rejection of their claim the petitioners approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The said complaint was opposed by the insurance company on the same ground on which the claim was rejected. The District Forum vide its order dated 05-04-2013 directed as under:

“In view of above position, the complaint is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party to investigate the matter afresh and decide the claim of the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. The complainant is directed to furnish the documents pertaining to driving licence of insured and death due to accident within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action in case her claim is either repudiated by the opposite party or not settled within the stipulated period or he is not satisfied with the amount settled.”

Thereafter, the petitioners filed a fresh complaint alleging therein that they had submitted the requisite papers to the insurance company in terms of the order of the District Forum but despite their having submitted the requisite documents the claim had not been paid. The second complaint was also resisted by the insurance company on the same ground on which the first complaint was opposed. The District Forum allowed the complaint taking the view that while insuring the vehicle the officials of the insurance company must have satisfied themselves that the owner of the vehicle was holding a valid driving license.

3. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the insurance company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 09-09-2014 the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company noticing that the petitioners had not complied with the direction given by the District Forum in its first order dated 05-04-2013.

4. The order of the District Forum dated 05-04-2013 having not been challenged by either parties became final and binding on them. Vide said order the District Forum directed the complainant to furnish the documents pertaining to driving licence of the insured, within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the complainant to produce either the original driving licence of the insured or a copy of the same before the insurance company, to satisfy it that the deceased was holding a valid driving license at the time he met with an accident on 12-05-2004. That having not been done, the insurance company was justified in rejecting the claim, in the light of the aforesaid decision.

5. Even on merits it is not in dispute that the complainant did not produce either the original driving licence of the deceased or a copy of the said driving licence before the insurance company. Even the number of the driving licence of the deceased was not provided to the insurance company. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner is that in view of the requirement of the regulations framed by Tariff Advisory Committee, it w