1.      This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 29.06.2018 in First Appeal No. 191 of 2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (in short, the ‘State Commission’) allowing the appeal and dismissing order dated 31.01.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint no. 39 of 2015.

2.      The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that he is the owner of a Tata LPO 1510 vehicle, bearing registration number CG 14A 4111 which was insured with the respondent insurance company under policy no. 193490/31/2013/713 valid from 31.03.2013 to 30.03.2014. The vehicle met with an accident on 12.03.2014 and the respondent was informed of the incident on the same day. A claim was preferred for Rs.8,00,000/-. However, the respondent repudiated it on the ground that under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question, the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident did not possess a valid driving license as mandated. The complaint of the petitioner had been allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 31.01.2018 on the basis of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Malti Dikshabai Bhova 2013 (2) CPR 462 (NC). However, on appeal, the State Commission set this order aside on 29.06.2018 vide the impugned order. Hence the present Revision Petition. 

3.      I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the proxy counsel for the respondent on authority and perused the records carefully. Only the respondent filed his short synopsis of arguments despite opportunity to both parties to do so on 01.05.2023.

4.      The argument of the petitioner is that the driving licence of the driver, Neman Charjas Tirkey, was valid from 31.05.1998 to 10.10.2013. He had submitted it for renewal to the concerned Regional Transport Authority on 20.11.2013. While it was under process, the incident of accident occurred on 12.03.2013. He submits that the renewal process was delayed by the said driver by 10 days against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988. However, the District Forum, after due consideration had held that petitioner was entitled to 75% of the claim as per order of the National Commission in Smt. Malti Dikshabai Bhova (supra) which had held that:

“if any condition of the warranty or policy breaks by including the limit about use then the complainant entitles to get 75% of the valid claim on the basis of non-standard basis and insurance company is not entitled to dispose off the full claim”.

The petitioner argues that the order of the State Commission in allowing the appeal of the respondent insurance company disallowing the order of the District Forum be set aside since the order of the State Commission is based on an error of law and suffer from material irregularity in not appreciating the pleadings. It is argued that the driver had a valid driving license at the time of the accident since he was in possession of a renewal fee receipt for renewal of the driving licence.  It is contended that the District Forum erred in awarding only 75% of the claim amount. It is prayed that the order of the State Commission be set aside and that order of the District Forum be upheld along with Rs 25,000/- as litigation expense.

5.      The order of the State Commission reads as under:

18.     In the instant case, the driver Neman Charjas Tirkey, who was driving the vehicle bearing registration no. C G 14 A A 4111 did not hold valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The vehicle was being driven by the driver Neman Charjas Tirkey in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation, even on non-standard basis from the appellant (OP).

19.     Therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and must be set aside. Accordingly, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant (OP) and set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2018, passed by the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) also stands dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal”.

6.      The moot issue in the case is whether the repudiation of the claim by the respondent insurance company on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid license under the MV Act on the date of the accident is a valid ground for rejection of the claim filed by the petitioner and whether this constitutes deficiency in service by the respondent insurance company qua the petitioner, who was its consumer having paid a premium for the insurance policy in question. The associated issue is that if so, the quantum of claim to be provided.

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted during arguments that the driver did not possess a valid driving license on the date of the accident (12.03.2014) since the license had expired on 10.10.2013 and the application for its renewal was delayed by 10 days as it was filed on 20.11.2013. The case of the petitioner is that the District Forum has allowed 75% of the claim based on an order of this Commission and that the same did not warrant any interference by the State Commission. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would argue that section 15 of the MV Act, 1988 was specific in stipulating that a renewal application is required to be filed within 30 days and that in the instant case it had admittedly not been done. It was also argued that the District Commission had erred in relying on Smt. Malti Dikshabai Bhova (supra) since it related to a matter of warranty and not of driving license and was, therefore, clearly distinguishable.

8.     Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the damage/ loss claim for insured vehicle was repudiated on 02.12.2014 on the ground that the licence of the driver was not valid to drive the passenger vehicle on the date and time of the accident. He further submitted during oral arguments that the driving licence was not valid for the period between 11.10.2013 to 12.03.2013 for both non-transport and transport vehicles. He also states that the licence was renewed after the accident.   Admittedly the driving licence of the driver was not valid as on the date of the accident. According to the respondent, the State Commission has also rightly held that the renewal of the driving licence was done after 40 days from the date of last expiry. He further states that the District Forum wrongly allowed the claim on non-standard basis. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Commission in Suresh Kumar vs IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., (RP no. 520 of 2018) dated 23.04.2018, wherein it was held that the insurance company cannot be held liable in case the driving licence expired prior to the date of accident and if it is not renewed within the prescribed limit of 30 days. He has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Beli Ram vs Rajinder Kumar and Anr., (2020 SCC Online SC 769) wherein it has been stated that in the event of failure to renew the driving licence within 30 days of expiry of the driving licence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

9.     From the record it is manifest that at the time of the accident the driver did not possess a valid driving license and had applied for the renewal of his license which had expired nearly 5 months earlier. This application was filed after 1 month and 10 days from the date of expiry. The proviso to section 15 (1) of the MV Act, 1988 is clear in mandating that “Provided that in case where the application for the renewal of a license is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal”.

( Emphasis supplied)

The State Commission has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra Agrawal (2009) 15 SCC 761 which laid down that:

“18.   From a plain reading of Section 15 of the Act, it is clear that if an application for renewal of licence is made within 30 days of the date of its expiry, the licence continues to be effective and valid without a break as the renewal dates back to the date of its expiry. Whereas, when an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act get attracted and the licence is renewed only with effect from the date of its renewal, meaning thereby that in the interregnum between the date of expiry of the licence and the date of its renewal, there is no effective licence in existence. The provision is clear and admits of no ambiguity.”

This judgment was based upon the Apex Court’s previous ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Jarnail Singh (2007) 15 SCC 28: JT 2001 Supp (2) SC 218), which reads as under:

“23.   In that case also, the driving licence of the driver, who drove the vehicle which got involved in the accident, had expired on 16.05.1994. The accident took place more than five months thereafter, i.e., on 20.10.1994 and the driving licence was renewed only with effect from 28.10.1996. On these facts, it was held the proviso to sub-section (1) of the Section applied; the driver had no licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident; the condition in the policy identical to the one in the present case was violated and therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay any amount to the insured”.

10.    In view of the foregoing it is evident that the insured was in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in that the driver of the vehicle insured did not possess a valid driving license on the date of the accident. The provisions of the MV Act, 1988 are clear that the driver should have a valid driving license and that in case of an expired license, the application for renewal should be filed within 30 days, failing which the license would be considered to be valid from the date of renewal. It is also admitted that the expired license was filed after the prescribed period of 30 days and therefore it is evident that the license would have been valid only from the date of renewal. The conclusion of the District Forum that the petitioner is entitled to 75% of the claim amount is erroneous in that the judgment of this Commission relied upon is distinguishable since the issue in the present petition is of a valid driving license and not of warranty as was the case in the case relied upon by the District Forum. Accordingly, the conclusion of the State Commission that the finding of the District Forum was erroneous cannot be faulted. Its order is detailed and exhaustive. Therefore, the State Commission’s finding that the claim deserves to be rejected on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid driving license is justified and does not deserve to be interfered with. Consequently, the issue of the quantum of claim to be allowed does not arise.

11.    For the aforementioned reasons, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.