Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and
Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Petitioner
versus
Sheela Meghwal – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.2647, 2648 of 2024
Decided on 16.10.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Jatin Kumar
For the Respondent: Ram Singh Rathore

IMPORTANT POINT
Learner License is a valid driving licence.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b) – Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 – Rule 3 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b) – Insurance – Motor Insurance – Driving licence – Fatal accident – Claim repudiated by Insurance Company on the ground of violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act with respect to driving vehicle with a Learner License – Complaint allowed by District Forum – There are concurrent findings of both Fora below as regards deficiency on part of Insurance Company – Fora below have passed well-reasoned orders – In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by District Forum and State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record. (Paras 8, 10 and 11)
Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.

ORDER

Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petitions (RP) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under Section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the common order dated 03.04.2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Kota, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) Nos.29 and 30 of 2022 in which order dated 13.01.2022 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bundi (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 267 and 268 of 2019 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 03.04.2024 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum, Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 18.10.2024. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 30.08.2025 (Petitioner) and 17.09.2025 (respondent) respectively.

4. The Complainant filed two Consumer Complaints before the District Commission against the OP- one for the insured amount of his car in CC No. 267 of 2019 and other claim for personal accident claim of Rs.15,00,000/- in CC No. 268 of 2019.

5. Brief facts of the case that her husband Late Tulsidas had insured his car with the OP for the period 14.10.2018 to 13.10.2019. During the existence of the policy, on 01.04.2019, the said vehicle met with an accident and was completely destroyed and husband of the complainant died in accident. In the insurance policy taken by the husband of the complainant, he had also taken a personal accident insurance policy for an addition premium of Rs.750/-. The wife of the insured Sheela Meghwal submitted a claim before the OP but the same was rejected by the OP. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed two CCs before the District Forum - one for seeking compensation for vehicle’s damage in CC No. 267 of 2019 and other for seeking personal accident claim of Rs.15,000/- in CC No. 268 of 2019. The District Forum vide order dated 13.01.2022 allowed the complaint of the Complainant. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the OP filed two Appeals being Appeal No. 29 and 30 of 2022 before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 03.04.2024 dismissed both the Appeals. Therefore, the Petitioner is before us now in the present RPs.

6. Petitioner have challenged the said Order dated 03.04.2024 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) State Commission ought to have taken into consideration that terms of contract of insurance policy are to be strictly construed and the Courts must not take a lenient approach while deciding the liability of the parties in insurance disputes.

(ii) State Commission erred in not considering that insurance policy / contract expressly provides under its terms and conditions that insured must abide by Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 specifically clause (b) and (c).

(iii) State Commission ought to have considered that deceased / insured was in violation of Rule 3(b) of the Motor Vehicle Rules as he was admittedly driving alone on a learner’s license and was not accompanied by a person / instructor having a valid driving license and the said car did not have the mandatory ‘L’ sign displayed on the front and back of the vehicle. The insured / deceased had a learner’s license at the time of accident and hence was bound by Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

(iv) According to the set procedure and practice, it was essential for the respondent to immediately notify the petitioner / insurance company about any damage or any accident to the insured vehicle. In the present case, the respondent informed the petitioner / insurance company about the accident after a lapse of almost