http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4647 of 2003

PETITIONER: Jitendra Kumar                                           

RESPONDENT: Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.                       

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/07/2003

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh                      

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T  

(Arising out of SLP © No.21910 of 2001)

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       Leave granted.

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

       The appellant in this appeal is challenging the decision of  the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New  Delhi (National Commission) whereby the National Commission  dismissed his revision petition filed against the judgment and order  of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar  (State Commission) which in turn had allowed the appeal filed by  the respondent-Insurance Company before it. While allowing the  said appeal, the State Commission set aside an order of the District  Consumer Redressal Forum, Jehanabad (District Forum) whereby  the District Forum had allowed a claim of the appellant and  directed the respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of  Rs.80,000/- as damages suffered by the appellant due to the loss of  his motor vehicle and further directed the payment of Rs.5,000/- as  compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation.         Brief  facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:           The appellant was the owner of the Maruti Van bearing  Registration No.BR-2/5667 which was insured with the  respondent-Insurance Company. It is the case of the appellant that  on 25.4.1996 at about 9.30 p.m. while returning from Gaya to  Jehanabad the vehicle in question caught fire due to mechanical  reasons and due to the said fire the said vehicle was burnt beyond  repair. An intimation of this accidental fire was made to the  respondent-Insurance Company on 14.5.1996. With the said  intimation, the appellant also lodged a claim with the respondent  for payment of damages. The Insurance Company as per its letter  dated 10th of December, 1996 repudiated the said claim of the  appellant solely on the ground that the driver did not have a valid  licence at the time of the incident in question. The District Forum  after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the accidental  fire due to which the appellant’s vehicle got damaged was not  caused due to any act of the appellant’s driver but was due to  mechanical fault, therefore, it held the contention of the Insurance  Company that the appellant’s driver did not hold a valid licence  could not be a ground to repudiate the claim, accordingly, ordered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the payment of damage, compensation and cost as stated herein  above.

       In an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the State  Commission reversed the said judgment holding that the driver of  the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence and his original  licence was a fake which was inadvertently renewed by the District  Transport Officer, therefore, following the judgment of the  National Commission reported in 1996 (1) CPR 81 (NC) (Raj  Kumar and Anr. vs. New India Assurance Company & Ors.) held  that the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim  of the appellant.

       A revision petition filed by the appellant against the said  judgment of the National Commission came to be dismissed by the  National Commission by the impugned order wherein the National  Commission placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the  case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Shimla  vs. Kamla &  Ors. (2001 4 SCC 342).         As stated, it is against the above judgment of the National  Commission the appellant is before us.         Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the  National Commission and the State Commission erred in coming  to the conclusion that holding of valid driving licence was a  condition precedent to claim any damage from the Insurance  Company even when the accident in question has occurred due to  no fault/or act of the driver. He submitted that the judgment of this  Court in the case of New India Assurance Company (supra) has no  application to the facts of this case.

       We have heard learned counsel for the respondents who has  supported the orders of the State Commission as well as that of the  National Commission. So far as the facts of this case are  concerned, there is hardly any dispute, therefore, we can safely  proceed on the basis that the vehicle in question was damaged due  to a mechanical fault and no fault of the driver. For the purpose of  argument, we may also proceed on the basis that the driver of the  car did not have a valid driving licence. Question then is : can the  Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the  vehicle which is duly insured with the Company, solely on the  ground the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the  accident did not hold a valid licence ? Answer to this question, in  our opinion, should be in the negative. 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. Section  149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Insurance  Company to repudiate a claim wherein the vehicle in question is  damaged due to an accident to which driver of the vehicle who  does not hold a valid driving licence is responsible in any manner.  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.

       We notice that in the impugned order National Commission  has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of  New India Assurance Company (supra) which, in our opinion, has  no bearing on this aspect of the case in hand. This Court in the said  case held that the fake driving licence when renewed genuinely,  does not acquire the validity of a genuine licence. There can be no  dispute on this proposition of law. But then the judgment of this  Court in the case of New India Assurance Company (supra) does  not go to the extent of laying down a law which empowers the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Insurance Company to repudiate any and every claim of the  insured (appellant) merely because he had engaged a driver who  did not have a valid licence. In the instant case, it is the case of the  parties that fire in question which caused damage to the vehicle  occurred due to mechanical failure and not due to any fault or act,  or omission of the driver. Therefore, in our considered opinion  Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim of the  appellant.  

For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds, the  impugned judgments of the National Commission and the State  Commission are set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.  

The appeal is allowed with costs.