Back
Oriental Insurance Cannot Deny JCB Naxal Attack Claim Over Helper License NCDRC
The , presided over by Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, has firmly ruled that an insurer cannot repudiate a claim merely because a helper lacked a valid driving license when the vehicle was not actually being driven during a Naxal attack. Dismissing a revision petition by , the Commission upheld of the District and State Consumer Commissions, directing the insurer to honour the of Abhishek Gondi, owner of a JCB excavator.
When a Licensed Driver Steps Away
On , Gondi's JCB was operating in the Naxal-affected Dantewara area of Chhattisgarh. The licensed driver, Vinod Singh, had alighted to attend to nature's call, leaving the machine with helper Vikram Kumar Gautam and two labourers. Naxalites suddenly appeared, tied up the three occupants, and set the JCB ablaze by placing wood under its tyres and damaging the diesel tank. The machine was completely destroyed.
Gondi promptly lodged an FIR and informed the insurer. The appointed surveyor assessed the loss, yet Oriental Insurance on , asserting that the JCB was being driven by Vikram—who held no valid driving license—constituting a .
The Core Dispute: Driving or Sitting?
Oriental Insurance, through counsel , argued that the FIR itself recorded that Vikram had started the engine, implying he was driving the vehicle. The insurer contended that this movement, even if brief, violated the policy condition requiring a licensed driver at all times.
Conversely, Gondi's counsel, , maintained that the vehicle was stationary. Vinod Singh, the licensed driver, had only temporarily left. Vikram and the labourers were sitting on the machine, not driving it, when the Naxalites attacked. The engine may have been started, but the JCB never moved on the road.
Favours the Claimant
The NCDRC scrutinised the evidence, including affidavits from the driver and the surveyor, as well as the FIR. It observed that the surveyor's affidavit itself did not state that the JCB was moving when set on fire. The Commission drew a crucial inference from the absence of injuries:
“Had the vehicle been moving with these three persons on it when it was set on fire, they would have definitely received injuries, but there is nothing on record to indicate the same.”
The bench further noted that even if Vikram had attempted to shift the excavator, this did not establish actual driving on a public road:
“Even if it is assumed that Vikram, the helper was attempting to shift the excavator from one place to another, the same does not establish that the vehicle was actually running or travelling on a public road.”
No Breach, No Ground for Repudiation
The Commission underscored that the total loss was indisputably caused by the Naxal attack, not by any fault of the driver or helper. The terms of the policy were not breached because the vehicle was not being driven by an unlicensed person at the critical moment. As the order states:
“The probability therefore heavily weighs in favour of the complainant … we do not find this to be a case of any breach of the terms of the policy.”
Revision Dismissed, Claim Upheld
Applying the as laid down in and subsequent decisions, the NCDRC found no in the of the lower fora. The revision petition was dismissed, confirming that Oriental Insurance must honour the claim for the total loss of the JCB excavator.
This judgment reinforces the principle that insurance companies cannot rely on technicalities to avoid legitimate claims, especially when the evidence fails to establish an actual breach of policy conditions. For policyholders in conflict-prone areas, the ruling provides much-needed clarity that the presence of an unlicensed helper does not automatically void coverage when the vehicle is not in motion.
