1.       Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the order dated 28.03.2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.,Chandgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 173/2023 in which order dated 21.04.2023 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 504/2020 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the judgment dated 28.03.2024 and 21.04.2023 of the State Commission and District Commission respectively.  

2.       The claim of the complainants/Respondents herein was repudiated by the Petitioner/Insurance Company vide letter dated 16.10.2020 on the ground that the deceased husband of Respondent-1, Mr. Vijay Kumar Dhiman, who was driving the Motor Cycle in question on the date of incident, and was holder of Learner’s Licence MCWG (Motor Cycle with Gear) had violated the term & condition No. 5 of the Learner’s Licence Schedule and Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and limitations as to use of the Insurance  Policy.  Extract of relevant portions of the repudiation letter is reproduced below:-

“Respected Madam,

With reference to the above and our earlier letter dated 18/09/2020 vide which you were requested to send the reply to the Pre-repudiation letter within 7 days, we write to inform that no reply in this regard has been received by us till date.

It was informed vide said letter that Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Dhiman (driver of the vehicle at the time of accident) was holding Learner License No. CH 01/0021481/2019 for MCWG for the period 28/09/2019 to 27/03/2020 and as per the available records, the driver was riding the motor cycle without having a plate or card with letter "L" affixed on the vehicle. Also no person having a valid DL was accompanying the driver at the time of accident.

Thus the vehicle was being driven in contravention to the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, accident.

As per Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person:

While receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for test of competence to drive, so long as-

 (a) Such person is the holder of an effective learner's licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle:

(b) Such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving License to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. and

(c) There is painted, in the front and the rear or the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background.

As in the case, the vehicle was being driven in violation of Learner's License conditions as detailed above and also in violation to the Limitations as to use mentioned in the policy which specifically states that 'the person holding an effective Learner's license may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989."

Thus the Competent Authority has repudiated the aforesaid claim.”

3.       The complaint was allowed by the District Commission directing the OP/Insurance Company to pay a claim on Non-standard basis @80% of the insured amount i.e. Rs.12 lakhs, along with interest @9% p.a.   Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Insurance Company  before the State Commission was dismissed and order of the District Commission was upheld.  Hence, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner/Insurance Company.

4.       The deceased having taken a valid Motorized Two-Wheelers Package Policy for personal accident cover of Rs.15 lakh is not in dispute.  On 18.10.2019, the deceased was going on the aforesaid motorcycle and met with an accident with a Renault car and died on the spot.  The investigator appointed by the Insurance Company reported that the deceased was holding learner license and was entitled to drive MCWG only if he was accompanied by a pillion rider who holds a permanent license.  He was not authorized to drive the vehicle independently, hence the claim was not payable.  Further, it is a case of the Petitioner/Insurance Company that the deceased, though holding a valid learner license of MCWG, had violated the term and condition No. 5 of the learner license, which requires that the letter ‘L’ in red should be  affixed in front  and rear of the vehicle.  Further, Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and limitations as to use of the Insurance Policy was violated by the insured as he was driving the motorcycle without being accompanied by a pillion rider/instructor holding an effective driving license. 

5.       The Respondents/complainants on the other hand have submitted before the Fora below that on 18.10.2019, the deceased was plying his scooter, which was comprehensively insured under the said policy for a sum of Rs.15 lakh.  The deceased had retired from the service of Punjab National Bank on 31.08.2015, he used to attend his office on two wheeler and was in possession of License  for MCW which expired in 2006 on attaining the age of 50 years and he got the said license renewed, which was valid till 20.01.2011.  However, this license was not renewed after 20.01.2011 by the deceased.  Further, the deceased had purchased a car in the year 2002 and got another driving license for LMV valid from period 28.06.2002 till 02.04.2021.  After his retirement, in the year 2019, when the deceased came to know about the expiry of the earlier driving license MCW, he applied afresh for Driving License for MCW on 28.09.2019 but he was issued a Learner’s License, which was valid upto 27.03.2020.  The Respondents had contended that the repudiation of the claim by the Petitioner/Insurance Company is arbitrary as they have misinterpreted the Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act, stating further that the intent of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 is same as defined in Sub-Section (2) of  the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 i.e. applicable for such persons receiving training/instruction in driving a motor vehicle.  But in the present case, the deceased was holding a valid license since he started using Motor Cycle for his personal use and for professional use, which expired on 20.01.2011.  Thereafter, he was using his private Car and license authorizing him to drive the car was issued by the competent Authority.  After his retirement, when he approached the office of Licensing Authority to get the License for two-wheeler renewed they suggested to apply for fresh Learner’s license due to long break of the expiry of the old license.  Under the circumstances, the deceased got issued a fresh Learner’s license for MCW.  According to Respondents, under the given circumstances, deceased cannot be presumed to be a Learner when he has been in possession of permanent license for years and using motorcycle for his personal and private use.  Hence, in the present case, both the conditions stated in clause (1) of Section 3 do not apply to the deceased as at the time of accident, he was driving motorcycle as trained driver being having long experience of driving motor cycle for years and in possession of driving licenses for motor cycle and for Car and was not receiving instructions in driving a motor cycle.  Therefore, there is no breach of condition of Rule 3 of the Central Vehicle Rules, 1989 or Insurance Policy as is alleged.  Moreover, the deceased was nowhere stated to be negligent in the said accident.  As regard painting of letter ‘L’, the respondents contend that  deceased was having a permanent driving license, which expired in the year 2011, which shows that he was a trained driver having experience for years.

6.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Commission, other relevant records. The Petitioner has relied upon judgments of this Commission in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus R. Suguna, Revision Petition No. 3266 of 2008, decided on 16.09.2013 and in IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gajanand Sahu & Ors., Revision Petition No. 1723 of 2012, decided on 13.07.2015.  However, facts of case in these two judgments are distinguishable from the facts of present case.  In the case of former, the insured was not possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident.  In the later case, it was not the case that insured had earlier a valid regular MCGW license and was currently having a valid LMV driving license. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Versus New India Assurance Company Limited  (2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases 357, observed that  “It is well settled in a long line of judgments of this Court that any violation of the condition should be in the nature of a fundamental breach so as to deny the claimant any amount.”  Hence, if there is fundamental breach of the policy or breach of Motor Vehicle Act/Rules, it entitles the insurance company to repudiate the claim.  However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is no fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy/mother vehicle Act.  Relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) 11 SCC 259 and Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 536, we hold that even if there is some breach of condition(s) of the Insurance Policy/Motor Vehicle Rules, these breaches not being of fundamental nature, the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto.  Hence, the District Commission and State Commission were justified in allowing the claim on non-standard basis @80%.

7.       We see no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the District Commission in allowing the claim on non-standard basis @80% and in State Commission upholding the said order of the District Commission.  The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with its findings, hence the order of the State Commission is upheld.  Accordingly the Revision Petition is dismissed.  Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of.