Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2736
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PM, DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, M
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bababhai Shivabhai Rava – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 40 OF 2024
For the Petitioners: Ms. Aishwarya Sinha, Proxy Counsel (V.C.)
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Saini, Proxy Counsel (V.C.)
The burden of proof lies with the insurer to establish that the driver lacked a valid driving license, essential for coverage under the insurance policy.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 58(1)(b) - Revision Petition against dismissal of claim for insurance compensation - Claim repudiated due to non-submission of driving license - Insurer failed to establish absence of valid license as a fact - Burden of proof rests with the insurer - Obligations of both parties discussed. (Paras 6, 8, 9, 12, 14)
(B) Insurance - Fundamental duty of the insured to provide documentation - Insurance must be based on utmost good faith - Insurer’s obligations to verify the documentation of the insured - Claims not to be repudiated solely on procedural lapses. (Paras 11, 13)
(C) Deficiency in service defined - Dual obligations of the insurer and insured particularly surrounding documentation - Reliance on prior case law, establishing a precedent for similar cases. (Paras 7.1, 8)
Facts of the case:
The insured met with an accident while driving a rickshaw and was killed, leading to a claim by his family; the insurer denied the claim on grounds of non-production of the driving license, which was claimed to have been lost in the accident.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the findings of both the District and State Commissions that the insurer had not proven that the insured was without a valid driving license at the time of the accident; the insurance company had failed to conduct a proper investigation.
Issues: The main inquiries were whether the absence of a driving license was sufficient to repudiate the insurance claim and whether the insurer had fulfilled its obligations under the insurance contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the insurer's refusal to honor the claim was unjustified as they did not prove that the driver lacked a valid license; the onus to validate the claim's repudiation lies with the insurer.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident led to the insurance claim. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments surrounding the obligation to provide documentation. (Para 6) |
| 3. court reviews obligations of the insurer and validity of the claim. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58(l)(b) of Consumer Protection Act , 2019 against the order dated 18.05.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 179/2023 in which order dated 11.07.2022 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 339/2021 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the State Commission.
2. W hile the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP/Insurance Company) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Commission, the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Respondents before the State Commission in FA/179/2023 and Complainants before the District Commission in Complaint No. 339/2021. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 24.01.2024. Parties filed W ritten Arguments on 29.09.2025 (Petitioner) and 22.09.2025 (Respondents-1 to 3) respectively.
3. The Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 46 days as per calculations made by the Registry. Appellant has filed an application IA 256/2024 for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petition. Considering the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, delay is condoned. The case is taken up on merits.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -
Son of Respondents-1 & 2 and husband of Respondent No. 3, Bhagwanbhai was owner of a rickshaw. The rikshaw was covered with Insurance policy, which covered own damage and the personal accident insurance of owner driver. The policy was valid from 09.10.2020 to 08.10.2021. The life insurance of personal accident for owner- driver covered Rs. 15,00,000/-. On 23.05.2021, while Bhagwanbhai, alongwith his son Prince, was going towards Bhatamal Village of Vaghrol Village of Palanpur Taluka, met with an accident with a Jeep coming from wrong side. The insured/Bhagwanbhai and his son Prince died in the accident. FIR was lodged on 23.05.2021. The Complainants lodged their claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 03.08.2021 on the ground of non-production of valid Motor Driving License of the deceased. Hence, the Complainants filed Complaint before the District Commission.
5. Vide Order dated 11.09.2022 passed in the CC 339/2021, the District Commission allowed the Complaint. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2022 of the District Commission, the Insurance Company preferred an Appeal No. 179/2023 before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal vide order dated 18.05.2023 and confirmed the order passed by the District Commission.
6. Petitioner/ Insurance Company has challenged the said Order dated 18.05.2023 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) The State Commission failed to consider that it is the duty of the insured to provide the relevant documents required to assess the claim made by them in terms of the Insurance Policy.
(ii) State Commission has erred in holding that it is the duty of the Petitioner herein to gather the information that the insured did not possess valid and effective driving license. On the contrary it submitted that it is the duty of the insured to furnish the driving license of the driver of the insured vehicle in order to claim compensation from the Insurer.
(iii) The State Commission erred in placing relianc
