IMPORTANT POINT
Lack of valid driving licence may vitiate insurance cover.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition no. 3094 of 2016 has been filed against the judgment dated 05.05.2016 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 86 of 2015.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that he had a TATA Indica Vista no. MH 13 AC 8570 for the personal use of his family. He had taken an accident insurance policy no. 15130031110100000684 from the respondent/ opposite party/ insurance company for the period from 05.05.2011 to 04.05.2012. The vehicle met with an accident on 10.07.2011 and sustained considerable damage. He gave information of the same to the respondent and the respondent had done inspection of the accident vehicle. The petitioner got the said vehicle repaired from Sterling Motors at a cost of Rs.70,690/-. Thereafter the petitioner filled up the insurance claim form and made demand of the amount. On 13.09.2011 the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner saying that at the time of accident the driver had no valid driving licence and hence, they informed that the insurance was being denied.

3. The petitioner has made the following prayer:

a. The TATA Indica Vista no. MH 13 AC 8570 belonged to the petitioner which was covered under insurance with the respondent which was sent for repair after the accident for which Rs.70,690/- was spent and claimed against insurance; but though the petitioner was the licence holder, the said claim was denied and hence, order may please be passed that the amount of Rs.70,690/- may be given to the petitioner by the respondent along with interest @ 12% per annum.

b. A sum of Rs.10,000/- may be paid to the petitioner from the respondent lump sum towards the mental agony sustained by the petitioner

c. Order may please be passed that the respondent should pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- lump sum to the petitioner towards the cost of the application and advocate fee etc.

d. Any other order in the interest of justice may please be passed.

4. The respondents stated in their written statement that the policy given by them to the petitioner was subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. At the time of accident the driver did not have a valid driving licence. Hence, there was violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy and, therefore, the insurance of the petitioner was denied. In this regard on 13.09.2011 a letter was sent to the petitioner and this was informed to him.

5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solapur (‘the District Forum’) passed two orders. Vide order dated 12.09.2014 a three Member Bench had passed the following order:

i. “The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed;

ii. The opponent should pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.53,077/- towards the amount of insurance of the TATA Indica Car no. MH 13 AC 8570 as mentioned hereinabove along with interest thereon @ 8% per annum since the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., from 16.04.2012;

iii. Compliance of this order is to be made within 45 days from the date of this order failing which on the said amount from the date of filing of complaint, i.e., from 16.04.2012 till receipt of full amount the opponent would be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum;

iv. The opponent should pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- is to be paid and cost of complaint Rs.1000/- within 30 days from the date of this order”.

6. A Single Member Bench of the District Forum, Solapur on the same date has passed the following order:

“The complaint of the complainant is dismissed. Both parties should bear their respective costs”.

7. Aggrieved by the majority order, the respondent/ opposite party/ insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while allowing the appeal has observed as under:

“We find that in none of these cases referred by the majority view of the learned District Forum there was any