1.      This Revision Petition is filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”) against the order dated 07.04.2022, passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘State Commission’) in FA No.1009/ 2019 wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent/OP against the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (‘the District Forum’) wherein the District Forum allowed Complaint No.131/2018.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 99 days in filing the present Revision Petition.  For the reasons stated in I.A. No.10475 of 2022, the delay is condoned. 

3.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4.      Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that he owned a Maruti Swift ZDI Regn. No. HR32-F-5577 insured with the OP (insurer) under policy No. 98000031160104577432 from 16.11.2016 to 15.11.2017. The car had met with an accident on 15.09.2017 near Bhongra village, District Jind. The complainant applied for an insurance claim. The appointed surveyor inspected the vehicle on 14.10.2017 at Max Autos, Sangrur and assessed the damage and estimated the net loss to be ₹2,71,784 vide report dated 25.10.2017.  The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the grounds that the driver, Vikram Nain, held driving license at the age of 16 years, which was deemed invalid under the Motor Vehicles Act. The repudiation was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 23.01.2018. The complainant alleged that the claim was rejected without basis, causing him mental and physical harassment. Being aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint seeking the insurance claim amount of ₹2,71,784/- along with other reliefs.

5.      The OP/Insurance Company, in its written version filed before the District Forum, admitted the insurance policy and the appointment of a surveyor. The claim was rightly repudiated due to the driver's invalid license. They raised preliminary objections, including the lack of cause of action, and requested dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 13.08.2019 allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent/OP as under:

“4.  We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record carefully. Perusal of repudiation letter (Annexure C-1) reveals that claim of complainant has been repudiated on the ground that Driving License of Driver Mr.Vikram Nain was not valid as per M.V. Act because age of driver was 16 years at the time of issuance of license for LMV Car. Hence, claim is not entertainable. As per photocopy of Driving License (Annexure C-6) and verification thereof from Licensing Authority (MV), Narwana (Annexure C-10), Vikram Nain was authorized to drive vehicle of the description Car, Jeep, Motorcycle & Scooter and thus he was holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. After going through the record on file, we are of the view that on the day of accident, the driver Vikram Singh was authorized to drive the vehicle Maruti Swift and thus the repudiation on this ground by the OP insurance company is not justified.

     It is admitted by the OP insurance company that on the day of accident, the vehicle in question was duly insured with the OP Insurance company. The surveyor in his report (Annexure OP-1) has mentioned that complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,71,784/- as damage claim of his vehicle. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the receipt of certified copy of the order:-

(i) To pay a sum of Rs.2,71,784/- to complainant the along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint i.e. 17.10.2018 to till realization.

(ii) Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of harassment and litigation expenses.

    In case of failure in making the payment to the complainant within stipulated period, it shall carry simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.”

7.      Being aggrieved by the learned District Forum order, the OP filed an Appeal No.1009/2019 and the State Commission vide order dated 07.04.2022 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum with the following observations:

“6. It is admitted case of both the parties that present respondent/original complainant being the owner of car bearing registration No. HR 32F 5577 got the same insured with appellant-Insurance Company and it was during currency of the said policy that somehow or the other the above-said car got involved in a mishap when son of said complainant was driving it. Parties are also not at variance with each other that the said driver was holding a driving licence which has been proved on record at by present respondent/then complainant Annexure C-6 and later on has also been relied upon by the present - appellant/then opposite party as Annexure OP-6. A careful perusal of the above-said driving license bring out that when the above-said driving licence was issued on 01.04.1998 the said holder of the driving licence had not attained 18 years of age because of the sheer fact that he was born on 10.12.1981 itself. In this context if he go through the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act the applicant for the driving licence must have attained 18 years of age meaning thereby any person who would not have attained 18 years of his life could not have validly apply for a driving licence in his favour. Though even the licensing authorities should have noticed this irregularity in the above-said matter before granting this permission to said applicant Vikram Nain son of complainant but without getting into this controversy at this stage as the same might open Pandora’s box - suffice will be to say that this licence Ex. C-6 cannot said to be a valid licence for the above-said irregularity or we can go to extent of calling it illegality as well. This is how the only argument raised by learned counsel for present respondent/complainant that since the above- said driver of the car had already become 36 years of age perhaps for this reason even if some irregularity had happened at the time of allowing this driving licence in his favour that could have very well been cured but we are not impressed with this argument especially in view of what was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in India in one of its observation as pointed out earlier that when originally the licence was fake its renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. To put it differently Hon'ble Apex Court has conveyed that when the driving licence in question was defective in the beginning itself the said defect cannot be cured later on by any length of time or by any other subsequent development such as renewal or the like. Though in the case in hand the above-said driving license Ex. C-6 was granted with its validity till 2028 as is evident from Ex. C-6 itself so no occasion has arisen till date for the holder of this driving license to get it renewed further but the above-said observation can very well be stretched and made to apply also and said that when this license was granted on 01.04.1998 on account of the said holder being under-age he was not competent to acquire this license in his favour. This is how when this anomaly was detected and got reflected in the surveyor report relied upon by the respondent/then opposite party Ex. OP-1 then appellant -company was duly justified in repudiating the claim for this reason having breached one of the fundamental conditions of the policy under which the said car was covered at the time of accident. Despite our specific request before the learned counsel for the respondent/then complainant Sh. Ram Kumar Nain was at loss and was not keen to rely upon or refer to any pronouncement of the Superior Court to defend his logic. Therefore, in the net analysis, we are of the affirm view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Commission was unwarranted and was without any reasonable basis as such the observation recorded by the learned District Commission being erroneous cannot be accepted and as a result present appeal is found to have merits and hence the same stands accepted and the impugned order stands set aside and original complaint stands dismissed. Let the summoned file be sent back and this appeal file be consigned separately after due compliance.

7. Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousand only) deposited at the time of filing of present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt, identification and as per rules.”

8.      Being dissatisfied by the Order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned State Commission, the complainant filed this Revision Petition.

9.      In his arguments the learned Counsel for complainant reiterated the facts of the complaint and grounds taken in the Revision Petition.  He argued that at the time of accident the age of the driver was 36 years and he produced the report of the Licensing Authority, Narwana, Haryana wherein the Licensing Authority stated that the driver Vikram Nain having the valid and effective driving licence No.14213 valid up to 08.12.2028 and the learned State Commission has also failed to appreciate the fact that the driver was fully competent and skilled to drive the vehicle. However, the insurer repudiated the claim citing violation of the policy's terms and conditions. He argued in favour of District Forum’s order and sought to allow the Revision Petition.  He relied upon National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297; and United India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338.

10.    Per contra, the learned Counsel for Respondent/OP argued the date of birth of the driver of the vehicle in question is 10.12.1981 and the driving license was issued on 01.04.1998. As per provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, the applicant must have attained 18 years of age for issue of driving license. Meaning thereby, any person who would not have attained 18 years of his life could not have validly applied for a driving license. The policy issued to him explicitly states that the claim for damage of vehicle is not payable if driving license of the driver is not valid and effective. However, the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid and effective license which was taken at the age of 16 years which is clearly violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy. He argued in favor of the impugned order passed by State Commission and sought to dismiss the Revision Petition. 

11.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

12.    The main issue to be determined is whether the policy in question is payable, with due regard to the validity or otherwise of the driving license on record of Vikram Nain, the driver of the vehicle, under the Motor Vehicles Act?

13.    As per the contention of the complainant that the driver was 36 years old at the time of the accident and had held a driving license valid until 08.12.2028, as confirmed by the Licensing Authority, Narwana, Haryana. The District Forum decided in favour of the complainant, stating the driver was competent and skilled. He relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the insurance company cannot deny liability solely on account of a technical invalidity of the driver’s license unless there is material evidence of gross negligence or lack of driving skill. He also placed reliance on United India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru (Supra) wherein it emphasized that insurers cannot reject claims for minor technical issues regarding the license unless proven that the license was fraudulently obtained or the driver was unqualified. On the other hand, the OP/Insurance contended that the driver’s date of birth was 10.12.1981, making him 16 years old when the license was issued on 01.04.1998. As per the Motor Vehicles Act, a person must be 18 years old to be eligible for a driving license. Driving under such a license is a violation of the insurance policy’s terms and conditions, rendering the claim non-payable.

14.    Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits issue of a driving license to individuals under 18 years of age for driving motor vehicles, other than motorcycles with gear not exceeding 50cc. However, as per the Swaran Singh and Lehru (Supra) cases the validity of an insurance claim should not solely depend on technical deficiencies in the license unless fraud or incompetence is proven. The insurer must establish that the accident was caused due to driver’s incompetence or ineligibility to drive. While the driver was stated to be ineligible at the time of issue of the license, no evidence was presented by the insurer to show the driver lacked competence or skill to drive and the accident occurred due to negligence attributable to an invalid license. Further, the Licensing Authority validated the driver’s current license as effective and valid, which supports the complainant’s claim of the driver’s competence. The repudiation by OP solely on the driver’s age at the time of license issue lacks merit unless the incompetence of the driver or negligence was demonstrated to be the proximate cause of the accident. The complainant's claim, supported by established precedents and the Licensing Authority’s confirmation, is valid.

15.    Top of Form In view of the foregoing deliberations, the impugned order of the learned State Commission dated 07.04.2022 in Appeal No.1009/2019 is set aside and the order of the District Forum dated 13.08.2019 in Complaint No.131/2018 is upheld. Consequently, the Revision Petition No.1421 of 2022 is allowed.

16.    There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.