Insurance claims cannot be repudiated on mere technicalities regarding driving license categories, especially when the insured's professional background (e.g., Armed Forces) implies authorization to operate the vehicle in question.

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

Date of Institution: 26.04.2018

Date of final hearing: 10.04.2026

Date of order: 10.04.2026

First Appeal No.538 of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Block No. 4, 7th Floor, 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi through its authorized signatory Mr. Navjeet Singh, Deputy Manager, Legal, SCO 156-159, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

...Appellant

Versus

1. Sunita widow of Anoop Singh

2. Deepika minor daughter of Anoop Singh

3. Piyush minor son of Anoop Singh, both minor hence their mother namely Sunita being natural guardian.

4. Santra Devi W/o Vedpal (mother of deceased), all R/o Village Matanhail Tehsil Matanhail Distt. Jhajjar.

…..Respondents

CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER

Present:- Mr. Sachin Ohri, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Parmod Chauhan, counsel for the respondents through video conferencing.

ORDER

PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

Delay of 49 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in application seeking condonation of delay.

In present appeal No.538 of 2018; legality of order dated 25.01.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.162 of 2017 has been assailed; vide which complainants’ complaint has been allowed.

Factual Matrix: Anoop Singh-deceased purchased insurance policy from OP of motorcycle bearing No. HR-14M-6318. The said policy was valid from 15.06.2016 to 14.06.2017. On 18.02.2017, Anoop Singh was driving the said motorcycle and met with an accident. Anoop Singh was having valid driving license which was effective from 04.10.2000 to 03.01.2020. FIR No. 46 dated 20.02.2017 was got registered in Police Station Salhawas. LRs of deceased Anoop Singh intimated the OP and submitted the relevant documents for claim but OP wrongly and illegally refused to entertain the claim. As per plea, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.

Upon notice, OP raised contest and submitted that Anoop Singh died on 18.02.2017 but the same was not intimated to OP within stipulated period. After receiving the intimation, OP deputed its surveyor who assessed the loss subject to terms and conditions of policy and after considering the survey report and documents submitted on behalf of complainants, the OP found that at the time of accident, the deceased-insured owner Anoop was not having a valid driving licence rather having a driving license to drive particular class of light motor vehicle (Non- transport) and thus the claim was not tenable due to breach of policy. As per plea, complainants are not entitled for any compensation and the claim of complainants has been rightly repudiated by OP. As per plea, there is no deficiency in service on its part.

Parties led their respective evidence. On analyzing the same; learned District Commission has allowed the complaint vide order dated 25.01.2018, which is as under:-

“We, therefore, direct the respondent to make the payment of personal accident cover for owner-cum-driver Anup Singh i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per two wheeler package policy to the complainants on account of death claim of Anup Singh along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death of life assured Anup Singh i.e. 18.2.2017 (subject to submission of photocopy of death certificate of Anup Singh by the complainants with the respondent) till realization of final payment to the complainants. The complainants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

Feeling aggrieved; OP/Insurer has filed this appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

Learned counsel