NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1481/2025 (Against the Order dated 20th August 2025 in Appeal SC/27/A/960/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra)

WITH NC/IA/14103/2025 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Through its A.R PRESENT ADDRESS - NATINAL VERTICAL LEGAL 11TH FLOOR, CORE-2 SCOPE MINLAXMI NAGAR , NEW DELHI,DELHI.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus VALMIK RAMESH PATIL PRESENT ADDRESS - SHIRSOLI TQ JALGAONTEHSIL JALGAON , JALGAON,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

FOR THE PETITIONER MR. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE DATED: 08/12/2025

ORDER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by the learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench at Nashik (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 960 of 2018, arising out of the Order dated 04.09.2018, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgaon (for short the ‘District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 124 of 2017, against the concurrent findings given by both the foras below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the foras below have committed an error in ignoring the fact that the driver, who was driving the vehicle in question, did not possess a valid driving license on the date of accident i.e. 26.05.2016.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following two case laws:

1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, 2009 ACJ

2697 dated 10.07.2009 ;

2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Girish & Ors. Revision Petition No.958 of 2020 decided on 07 July, 2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Bench to pages 71 and 72 of the paper book and submitted that the driving license of the driver was valid upto 28.12.2015 to drive the LMV. He further submitted that initially the license was issued to drive a two-wheeler (motor-bike) and that was valid upto 20.07.2024. Subsequently, the licensee was also authorized to drive LMV but that was valid upto 28.12.2015, whereas the accident occurred on 26.05.2016. Both the foras below have ignored this fact and has passed the orders.

5. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) it has been held as under:

“10. The petitioner’s case is that repudiation of the claim by the petitioner was, inter alia, on the grounds of non-possession of a valid driving licence and that the District Commission had rightly set aside the complaint against the repudiation. The State Commission has held that the District Forum was in error in concluding that the driver was not in possession of a driving licence which was a mandatory requirement under the policy. The State Commission’s order has, however, held that the repudiation of the complaint on the grounds of non-possession of a driving licence was incorrect. From the record, it is evident that the driver of the vehicle on the date of the accident possessed a driving licence for ‘Non Transport’ which was valid from05.10.2024 till 04.10.24. However, the Transport Licence had expired on 28.03.2014. It is manifest that the driver was in possession of a driving licence for a ‘Non Transport’ class of vehicle till 04.10.2024. The petitioner’s argument is that this pertained to the MCWG endorsement based upto the category indicated against it based on the extract of the DL dated 19.04.2018 provided by the Deputy Regional Office, Motor Vehicle Department, Government of Maharashtra. The conclusion of the State Commission is based on the law laid down vide the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra) that there was no requirement to obtain separate endorsement on the DL for a LMV if the driver was holding a val