ORDER

This revision petition under section 58 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 05.02.2020 in First Appeal No. 613 of 2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, the ‘State Commission’) arising out of the order dated 19.11.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Latur (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint no. 112 of 2018. This order will also dispose of revision petition no. 482 of 2022.

2. The facts, in brief, according to the revision petitioner, are that it issued a vehicle insurance policy to the petitioner for a Honda City car no. MH 25 P 8010 for the period 02.02.2016 to 01.02.2017. On 04.12.2016 the car met with an accident near Terkheda village, Kallam taluka, District Osmanabad while being driven by one Anil Manjule. An FIR was registered at Police Station, Yermala. On 25.01.2017, after 51 days, the respondent informed the petitioner of the accident and submitted a claim form on 01.02.2017. The spot surveyor submitted his report on 04.02.2017 and thereafter Surveyor & Loss Assessor Arun T Kulkarni submitted his report on 29.03.2017. The claim was repudiated by the petitioner vide letter dated 04.04.2018 on the grounds that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) at the time of the accident and the claim was submitted within the stipulated time and claims guidelines. The respondent had approached the District Forum in consumer complaint no. 112 of 2018 which was dismissed on 30.11.2018 on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. Thereafter the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which was disposed of on contest vide order dated 05.02.2020 setting aside the order of the District Forum and upholding the appeal. This order is impugned before this Commission.

3. The plea of the respondent complainant before the District Forum was to allow the claim of Rs 14,39,329/- with 18% interest from 25.01.2017, the date of filing the claim, repayment of loan for the car by respondent 4 to respondents 1 to 3 along with Rs 1,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs 10,000/- as costs. The order of the District Forum held that:—

… In the present case driver Manjule did not possess the LMV and the transport license it was expired on 28.03.2014. Accident took place on 21.12.2016. The NOC issued by the RTO Beed is suspicious. It is not observed that the respondent no. 4 had wrongly rejected the claim. …

Complainant failed to prove the complaint. It deserve to be dismissed. Hence the Forum answer issue no 4 in that respect and pass the following order.

Order

The complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

4. The order of the State Commission setting aside the District Forum’s order held as below:

We find that the permit of the transport vehicle had period mentioned as 29.03.2011 to 21.03.2014, however, for non-transport vehicle it was mentioned as 05.10.2004 to 04.10.2024. The opponents on the ground that the driver of the motor vehicle did not possess the valid license to drive the transport vehicle the insurer is not liable to pay. Our attention is invited to the fact that on 3rd February, 2017 making reference to the application the Dy. Regional Transport Officer from Osmanabad had clarified that vehicle class which was driven in the present case and which met with an accident from LMV (Light Motor Vehicle). According to learned advocate for the appellant the driving license clearly mention validity of the motor driving license for non-transport vehicle during the period 05.04.2010 to 04.12.2024 though for the transport vehicle license for expiry date of 28.03.2014. Our attention is invited to ruling in M S Bhati vs National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported as 2019 (2) CPJ Page 79, whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 14 making reference to earlier ruling to Mukund Dewa