IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1430 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 18/01/2017 in Appeal No. 750/2014 of the State Commission Gujarat)

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Zodiac Avenue, 3rd Floor, Opp. Mayor’s Bungalow Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Represented through its Delhi office at

2nd & 3rd Floor, D-160/2 Behind Honda Courtesy, Okhla Phasel, New Delhi-110020 Petitioner (s)

Versus Mitesh Gokulbhai Parmar Res. At A/9, Dhaval Nagar Society HSG Complex, Nr. Dena Bank Kabirpole, Navsari Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'IBLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) Ms. Bhumika Chauhan, Advocate (VC)

For the Respondent(s) None Dated : 05.12.2025

ORDER

1.

None appears for the Respondent despite service and even vakalatnama having been filed on behalf of the Respondent by Mr. Radhesh Y. Vyas. Even written synopsis has been filed by the Respondent. Hence, the Respondent is proceeded ex-parte and the matter is taken up in their absence. However their written synopsis shall be taken into account while deciding the case on merits.

2.

Heard Counsel representing the Petitioner. Challenge is to order dated 18.01.2017 of the State Commission vide which the appeal filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed. Earlier the complaint was allowed by the District Forum with directions to the Insurance Company to pay Rs.3 lakhs alongwith compensation etc.

3. There are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner/ Insurance Company herein. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the scope in the Revision Petition is limited. In the present case, the claim was repudiated by the Petitioner/ Insurance Company vide its letter dated 20.05.2008 primarily on the ground that the driver was not possessing the valid driving licence of the class of the vehicle being driven by him, which is violation of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The extract of the relevant portion of the said letter which is reproduced below:

“With reference to above we refer to own damage claim lodged by you for damages to your vehicle No. GJ-21-T-9540 on 16.01.2008. On going through the papers submitted by you and final survey report it has been found that the driver Shri Asif M. Kadrolli who was driving the subject IV at the material time of accident was not possessing valid Driving Licence of the class of the vehicle being driven by him which is violation of rules of MV Act, 1988 and breach of policy terms and conditions, hence claim is not admissible under the policy and based on this reason the Claim is repudiated and we are closing the file as NO CLAIM

4. The Petitioner herein themselves has placed on record the copy of the Driving Licence of the driver which covers three classes of the vehiclle viz. LMV, LAV & HTV, the last one is heavy vehicle category. Further this licence states this is “valid till (transport) 30.01.2010” and “valid till (non-transport) 27.02.2025”. The incident took place on 16.01.2008. Hence as on the that date, the driver was having a valid Driving Licence of all the three class categories. Hence, prima facie we find that the reason for the repudiation as stated in the repudiation letter is not valid. During the hearing the counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to the Government of Goa’s notification which has certain provisions relating to metal batch to be worn by the driver of the public vehicle. She further submitted that the driver was not wearing this batch. However, we find that this is not a ground m entiorfin the repudiation letter. Even assuming that the driver was not wearing the such batch but having a valid Driving Licence, this cannot be considered the material violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Further as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of the judgments the Insurance Company cannot go beyond the repudiation letter and argue new grounds during the