1.       The present two Revision Petitions (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the common order dated 14.02.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahemdabad, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.524-525/2017 in which order dated 28.07.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahemdabad (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) CC/23/2014 & CC/24/2014 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the common order of State Commission and allow the revision petitions. As the above stated RPs have been filed against the similar/related orders of the State Commission, parties involved are the same, and issues for consideration/determination are related, these are being taken up together under this order. For the sake of convenience, parties would also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was  Respondent and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Appellants in the said FAs 524/2017 & FA/525/2017 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent(s) were Complainants before the District Forum in the CC/23/2014 & CC/24/2014. Notice was issued to the Respondent. Both parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 06.10.2023.

3.       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:-

The complaint stems from an accident on 23.04.2014 involving Bipinbhai Mohanlal Maheta and Hareshbhai Vallabhdas Gandhi. The car, owned by Hareshbhai and driven by Bipinbhai, was insured by the OP Insurance Company for the period from 09.05.2012 to 08.05.2013, with comprehensive coverage, including personal accident insurance for the owner-driver and paid driver. The accident occurred near the Mithdi river bridge in Rajasthan when a truck allegedly drove rashly, colliding with the car. Both Bipinbhai and Hareshbhai lost their lives in the accident. Bipinbhai's family filed a complaint (no. 22/14) seeking compensation for his personal accident insurance, which was sanctioned by the District Forum. However, claims for the car damage (complaint no. 23/14), transportation expenses incurred (bringing the car to Ahmedabad from Rajasthan), rent at the Toyota Company (from the accident date to the complaint filing), and an amount for mental trauma totaling Rs. 8,19,222/- with 18% yearly interest and costs were rejected by the insurance company. Additionally, in complaint no. 24/14, a claim for Rs. 2,00,000/- for personal accident and Rs. 25,000/- for mental anguish was sought, along with interest and costs.

4.       Vide common Order dated 28.07.2017, in the CC/23/2014 & CC/24/2014 the District Forum has dismissed the complaints. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 28.07.2017 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 14.02.2019 in FA/524/2017 & FA/525/2017 has set aside the order of District forum and partially allowed the appeals.

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 14.02.2019 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The State Commission overlooked that according to the Motor Vehicle Act and Policy Conditions, the person driving the insured vehicle must hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. In this case, the deceased driver/insured lacked the necessary valid driving license as required by the insurance contract. The State Commission failed to consider the police documents, including the FIR, Panchnama, and investigation report, which indicate that the deceased insured, Harish Kumar, was driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. The State Commission did not acknowledge that the Driving License issued by the concerned RTO was valid for Motorcycle and LMV from 16.02.2000 to 08.05.2012 and was not renewed thereafter. The accident occurred on 23.04.2013, after the DL had expired. The State Commission neglected to recognize that the deceased driver/insured did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, constituting a breach of the insurance policy's terms and conditions.

2. The State Commission overlooked information provided by the police authority under the RTI Act, affirming that at the time of the accident, Harish Kumar V Gandhi, the deceased/insured, was driving the vehicle. The State Commission disregarded the investigation report submitted by M/s S.P.Singh & Associate, indicating that Harishkumar and Bipinbhai M. Mehta were business partners traveling to a seminar in Jodhpur. Therefore, Bipinkumar Mehta was not a paid driver for the insured. The State Commission failed to recognize the status of the deceased, Harish Kumar V. Gandhi, who was not covered under the insurance policy, as he was driving the vehicle without holding an effective driving license at the time of the accident (09.05.2012). The deceased was not the owner of the vehicle but rather a business partner of Harishkumar and an occupant of the vehicle and the State Commission did not appreciate these distinctions.

3. The State Commission overlooked the absence of evidence regarding Sh. Bipinkumar M. Mehta being a paid driver and failed to appreciate that, based on the Police Report and PM report, the deceased/insured was found dead on the driving seat of the insured vehicle, and his identity was established from the driving license found in his pocket. The State Commission did not acknowledge that the accident occurred between two vehicles, the insured Car and Truck, in a head-on collision. Both drivers should be considered equally responsible, and the claim should be settled according to the terms and conditions of each vehicle's policy. Despite acknowledging that the driver of the insured vehicle lacked a driving license, the State Commission allowed the appeals, rejecting the (OP) insurance company's contentions based on Forum’s earlier decision and the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Lakhmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100). The State Commission failed to appreciate that the repudiation of the claim, in accordance with the policy terms and conditions, and with cogent reasons, does not amount to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

6.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

1. The counsel for respondents/complainants argued that the reasoning and findings presented by the Consumer Forum, aligned with the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment Lakhmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100. This judgment established that victims are entitled to damages even if they lacked a valid driving license, provided they were involved in an accident caused by the negligence of the offending vehicle's driver. The vehicle in question was driven by the insured's driver, Bipin Bhai Maheta, as affirmed by eyewitness Mr. Rajesh Desai's affidavit submitted before the MACT Court/Tribunal. The investigator's report, initially unclear about the driver, later included hearsay information. However, the unchallenged eyewitness evidence should hold weight, especially when supported by the investigator's initial findings. The District Forum initially allowed Bipin Bhai Maheta's accidental claim, indicating the owner's claim should have been similarly allowed. The repudiation letter lacks a basis and reasoning, and the State Commission's judgment, in line with the first appeal by claimants, should stand upheld after dismissing the Revision Petition, given no jurisdictional error by the State Commission.

2. The counsel for petitioner/OP relied upon the reports of the surveyor and observations of the District Forum. Following cases were cited:

1.  Hazara Begum v. Oreintal Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP/2638/2010) NCDRC

2.  Raheem Shah and Anr. V. Govind Singh and Ors. (CA No. 4628/2023) Hon’ble Supreme Court

7.       While the case of complainant is that on the day of accident, car was driven by paid driver Bipin Bhai Maheta, the case of OP Insurance Company is that it was the owner of Car Hareshbhai Vallabhdas Gandhi who was driving the car, but at the time of accident, he was not holding a valid and effective driving license. Both Bipin Bhai and Hareshbhai died in the accident. District Forum after evaluating the evidence of both sides, came to the conclusion that the car in question was not driven by Bipin Bhai Maheta but was driven by the owner of the car Hareshbhai Vallabhdas Gandhi at the time of incident and on the date of incident, Hareshbhai was not holding a valid and effective driving license. In view of these findings, the District Forum held that legal heirs of deceased Hareshbhai Vallabhdas Gandhi are not entitled to insurance claim for own damages. District Forum has relied upon following judgements in this regard, wherein it was held that if the driver of vehicle drive the car without valid and effective licence then own damage claim is not payable, hence dismissed CC/23/2014 and CC/24/2014:-

(a) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. The Dhana Khurd Co-OP. Transport Society Ltd., NCDRC (RP/228/2011), 01.05.2013

(b) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Havaben Sabhirbhai Mansuri & Ors., NCDRC (RP/3061/2008), 04.09.2013  

 (c) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, (Civil Appeal No. 44/2003), 10.07.2009

8.  State Commission in appeal, after appreciating the evidence before it, also came to a finding that deceased insured Hareshbhai Vallabhdas Gandhi, was driving the car at the time of accident and at the time of accident, he was not having a valid and effective licence, which expired on 09.05.2012. Hence, on this aspect both the fora below have given concurrent findings and we agree with these findings.

9.  However, State Commission, relying on the following judgement of Supreme Court, have come to a conclusion that where the death has occurred due to the negligence of Opponent truck, the complainant became entitled to get its own damages of the deceased insured.

(a) Lakhmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100, 07.01.2016

Hence, allowing the appeals partially, State Commission directed the OP Insurance Company to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 6,46,995/- after deduction Rs. 1,000/- being the compulsory deduction from Rs. 6,47,995/- as per the IDV for the loss to the car, together with 6% interest from the date of filing of the complaint and to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant being the personal accident, together with 6% interest from the date of filing of the complaint.

10.     We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records, case laws relied upon by the District Forum and State Commission and rival contentions of the parties.

11.    In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, (Civil Appeal No. 44/2003), 10.07.2009, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:-

“17.As a matter of fact, in view of the clear mandate of Section 3 of the Act, the deceased driver was not even permitted to drive the insured vehicle in a public place. Furthermore, the claimant not only committed breach of the terms of the policy, he also violated the provisions of Section 5 of the Act by entrusting the vehicle to a person who did not hold a valid licence on the date of the accident………”

12.   In Lakhmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:-

“16. …..the insurance company, in order to avoid liability must not only establish the defence claimed in the proceeding concerned, but also establish breach on the part of the owner/insured of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company. In the instant case, the respondent-Company has not produced any evidence on record to prove that the accident occurred on account of the overloading of passengers in the goods carrying vehicle. Further, as has been held in the case of B.V. Nagaraju (supra) that for the insurer to avoid his liability, the breach of the policy must be so fundamental in nature that it brings the contract to an end. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the accident was infact caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, against whom a criminal case vide FIR no. 66 of 2010 was registered for the offences referred to supra under the provisions of the IPC. ……”

13.    In Jitendra Kumar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 420, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:-

“Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the Insurance Company in repudiating a claim where driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. ………… It does not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to acts to which the driver has not, in any manner, contributed i.e. damages incurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver.”

14.   In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Others (2004) 3 SCC 297, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-

“49.Such a breach on the part of the insurer must be established by the insurer to show that not only the insured used or caused or permitted to be used the vehicle in breach of the Act but also that the damage he suffered flowed from the breach.

110. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.

(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case.”

15.   In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that State Commission was justified in placing reliance on the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhmi Chand (Supra), and concluding that when the death has occurred due to negligence of the opponent truck, the Complainant became entitled to own damage of the deceased insured, and Complainant also becomes entitled to get the claim of loss to the car. Hence, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of State Commission. Hence, we uphold the order dated 14.02.2019 of the State Commission. Accordingly, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed.

16.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.