State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt Mamta W/O. Late Ishwar Singh Rathor vs Bajaj Alaince General Ins.Co. on 13 March, 2026
Appeal Nos.: Pradeep Date of Pronouncement:
SC/22/FA/596/2025 Vs. 13/03/2026
a/w 04 other appeals. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (a/w 04 other appeals)
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
APPEAL No.- SC/22/FA/596/2025
Date of Institution: 17/12/2025
IN THE MATTER OF :
Pradeep S/o. Shri Ramji Patel,
R/o. Vill. Parsada, P.O. Pahariya, Tah. & P.S. Baloda,
Dist. Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Complainant / Appellant
Through: Shri B. Mazumdar, Advocate
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through: Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
First Floor, LIC Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur,
Tah. & Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Opposite Party/Respondent
APPEAL No.- SC/22/FA/615/2025
Date of Institution: 23/12/2025
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Mukesh Yadav S/o. Shri Vansh Gopal,
2. Smt. Uma W/o. Shri Mukesh Yadav,
Both R/o. Ward No.18, Indira Vas Marwahi, Nawatola,
Dist. Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Complainants / Appellants
Through: Shri B. Mazumdar, Advocate
Vs.
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office: Vyapar Vihar, Main Road, Near Vinayak Netralaya,
Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Opposite Party/Respondent
APPEAL No.- SC/22/FA/616/2025
Date of Institution: 23/12/2025
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Mamta W/o. Late Shri Ishwar Singh Rathore,
R/o. Ward No.05, Kotkhari, Lalpur, P.S. Gaurela,
Dist. Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Complainants / Appellants
Through: Shri B. Mazumdar, Advocate
Vs.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,
Through: Authorized Officer, 3rd Floor, Gurukrupa Tower,
Near ICICI Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur,
Tah. & Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) - 495 001 ... Opposite Party/Respondent
APPEAL No.- SC/22/FA/617/2025
Date of Institution: 23/12/2025
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Shikha Sharma, W/o. Late Shri Rakesh Sharma,
R/o. Ward No.09, Chetan Chowk, Indira Gandhi Ward, Pendra,
Dist. Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Complainants / Appellants
Through: Shri B. Mazumdar, Advocate
Vs.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,
Through: Authorized Officer, 3rd Floor, Gurukrupa Tower,
Near ICICI Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur,
Tah. & Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) - 495 001 ... Opposite Party/Respondent
All appeals dismissed. Page 1 of 7
Appeal Nos.: Pradeep Date of Pronouncement:
SC/22/FA/596/2025 Vs. 13/03/2026
a/w 04 other appeals. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (a/w 04 other appeals)
APPEAL No.- SC/22/FA/618/2025
Date of Institution: 23/12/2025
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Vedwati Rajak, W/o. Late Shri Kamal Prasad Rajak,
R/o. Vill. Ganya, Tah. Marwahi,
Dist. Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Complainants / Appellants
Through: Shri B. Mazumdar, Advocate
Vs.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company,
Through: Authorized Officer, Anandam Plaaza, Second Floor,
Vyapar Vihar Road, Opp. Ramaport, Bilaspur,
Tah. & Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) - 495 001 ... Opposite Party/Respondent
IN All APPEALS
Date of Motion Hearing: 25/02/2026
Date of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT IN ALL APPEALS: -
Shri B. Mazumdar, Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This order will govern disposal of all the above five appeals, under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short), arising out of separate impugned orders dated 28.11.2025 in complaint case Nos. DC/375/CC/262/2024, DC/375/CC/20/2025, DC/375/CC/47/2024, DC/375/CC/48/2024 and impugned order dated 03.12.2025 in complaint case No.DC/375/CC/46/2024 respectively by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (CG) (hereinafter called "District Commission" for short), whereby the complaints were dismissed on the ground that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/respondent was not established on the preponderance of probabilities. Feeling aggrieved the complainants have preferred these appeals. Since all these appeals involve similar questions of law and fact, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Appeal No. SC/22/FA/596/2025 are being All appeals dismissed. Page 2 of 7 Appeal Nos.: Pradeep Date of Pronouncement:
SC/22/FA/596/2025 Vs. 13/03/2026 a/w 04 other appeals. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (a/w 04 other appeals)
discussed herein. Hereinafter, the parties shall be referred to by their original nomenclature, as they appeared before the District Commission
2. The complainant's brother, late Satpal Patel, died on 11.06.2024 in a motor accident while driving his own motorcycle. The said motorcycle, bearing registration number CG-11-BL-5812, was duly insured by the opposite party under an insurance Policy, Exhibit C-09, valid for the period from 22.03.2024 to 21.03.2025. The policy carried a Compulsory Personal Accident (CPA) cover of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the owner- driver. Pursuant to the unfortunate demise of the insured, a claim under the aforesaid CPA cover was duly submitted before the opposite party insurance company. However, despite the lapse of considerable time, the claim was not settled. Such failure on the part of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service within the meaning of the Act, thereby giving rise to the complaint before the District Commission.
3. The opposite party in its written version denying the allegations levelled in the complaint averred that at the time of the accident, the deceased owner-driver Satpal Patel was driving the motorcycle without holding a valid and effective driving licence. Furthermore, as per the police records, the insured and the pillion rider both had consumed alcohol and the deceased insured was driving the vehicle negligently at the time of the accident Thus, the deceased violated the express terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, the opposite party insurance company is not liable to indemnify or make payment under the CPA cover in question. It was further averred that they have not committed any deficiency in service, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
All appeals dismissed. Page 3 of 7
Appeal Nos.: Pradeep Date of Pronouncement:
SC/22/FA/596/2025 Vs. 13/03/2026
a/w 04 other appeals. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (a/w 04 other appeals)
4. Learned District Commission in the impugned order observed that in terms of General Regulation 36 (GR-36), issuance of a CPA cover for the owner-driver is mandatory. However, at the time of accepting the additional premium, requiring production or verification of the owner's driving licence cannot be insisted upon, as no such rule or regulation has been notified by the IRDA. Policies are ordinarily issued on the basis of the engine number and chassis number mentioned in the invoice. Nevertheless, when the owner himself is driving the vehicle, submission of a claim under the CPA cover presupposes that the owner-driver holds a valid and effective driving licence at the material time of the accident. Failure to do so amounts, on the one hand, to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, constituting an offence, and on the other hand, to breach of the fundamental terms and conditions of the insurance policy. With these observations, the complaint was dismissed holding that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party was not established on the preponderance of probabilities.
5. Arguments on admission of this appeal is heard. Record perused.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint has vehemently argued that it was incumbent upon the insurer, at the time of issuance of the CPA cover, to ascertain and verify that the owner of the vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence. Once such CPA cover has been issued upon receipt of premium, the insurer is bound by the contractual obligation to indemnify and pay the assured sum under the policy. Accordingly, repudiation of the claim on the ground of absence of a valid licence at the time of accident is untenable, and the insurer cannot evade liability under the CPA cover. It was mandatory for the insurer to ask and verify at the time All appeals dismissed. Page 4 of 7 Appeal Nos.: Pradeep Date of Pronouncement:
SC/22/FA/596/2025 Vs. 13/03/2026 a/w 04 other appeals. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (a/w 04 other appeals)
of issuance of CPA cover that the owner of the vehicle is having valid and effective driving license and once if the CPA cover is issued, the insurer is bound to pay amount of CPA cover under the policy. In this regard he has placed reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble National Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. S. Venkta Lakashmamma, IV (2012) CPJ 678 (NC). It is prayed that this appeal has debatable questions of law and facts, hence the same be admitted for final arguments.
7. In order to address the core issue involved in these appeals, it is pertinent to reproduce General Regulation 36 (GR-36) of the Indian Motor Tariff, which reads as under: -
"GR.36. Personal Accident (PA) Cover under Motor Policy (not applicable to vehicles covered under Section E, F and G of Tariff for Commercial Vehicles) A. Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver Compulsory Personal Accident Cover shall be applicable under both Liability Only and Package policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an 'effective' driving license is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this section. Cover is provided to the Owner-Driver whilst driving the vehicle including mounting into/ dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co- driver.
NB. This provision deals with Personal Accident cover and only the registered owner in person is entitled to the compulsory cover where he/she holds an effective driving license. Hence compulsory PA cover cannot be granted where a vehicle is owned by a company, a partnership firm or a similar body corporate or where the owner-driver does not hold an effective driving license. In all such cases, where compulsory PA cover cannot be granted, the additional premium for the compulsory P.A. cover for the owner
- driver should not be charged and the compulsory P. A. cover provision in the policy should also be deleted. Where the owner-driver owns more than one vehicle, compulsory PA cover can be granted for only one vehicle as opted by him/her."
It is also pertinent to mention here the circular No.IRDAI /NL/CIR/MOTP/158/09/2018 dated 20th September, 2018, which begins with (GR)-36 as under: -
"General Regulation ('GR')-36 of India Motor Tariff ('IMT'), 2002 mandates General Insurance Companies carrying on motor insurance business to provide Compulsory Personal Accident (CPA) Cover for Owner- Driver under both Liability Only and Package policies. The owner of Insured vehicle holding an 'effective' driving license is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this section. The Cover is provided to the Owner-Driver whilst driving the vehicle including mounting into/ dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver."All appeals dismissed. Page 5 of 7
Appeal Nos.: Pradeep Date of Pronouncement:
SC/22/FA/596/2025 Vs. 13/03/2026
a/w 04 other appeals. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (a/w 04 other appeals)
General Regulation 36 (GR-36) of the Indian Motor Tariff, pertaining to Compulsory Personal Accident (CPA) cover for the owner-
driver, clearly stipulates that only the owner of the insured vehicle holding a valid and effective driving licence is termed as the 'Owner-
Driver' for the purposes of this section for availing benefits under the said CPA cover.
8. In the facts of the present case, it stands admitted that the deceased insured was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the material time of the accident and as stipulated in GR-36 of Indian Motor Tariff and circular of IRDAI dated 20th September, 2018, he was not entitled to get CPA cover itself. We find no merit in the contention that the insurer ought not to have issued the CPA cover without prior verification of the owner's driving licence status. It was also the duty of the owner to adhere to the principle of uberrima fides and to disclose the fact of not holding a driving licence, especially as the insurance policy, copy of which available on record as Exhibit C-9 and OP-29, reveal that the vehicle in question was insured as 'New' without any reference to its registration number. We concur with the observation of the learned District Commission that the policy was issued on the basis of the engine number and chassis number mentioned in the invoice. It is further significant to note that, in the police case documents it has been clearly recorded that the deceased owner-driver of the motorcycle had consumed alcohol and e operating the vehicle negligently at time of accident.
9. So far as the judgement of Hon'ble National Commission in S. Venkata Lakashmamma (supra) is concerned, the same has rightly been distinguished by the learned District Commission as in that case the insured owner was not driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident, All appeals dismissed. Page 6 of 7 Appeal Nos.: Pradeep Date of Pronouncement:
SC/22/FA/596/2025 Vs. 13/03/2026 a/w 04 other appeals. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (a/w 04 other appeals)
whereas in the facts of the present case the insured owner himself was driving the vehicle but he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. We are also of the view that the facts being different, the above citation is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
10. Thus, we do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Commission in the impugned order nor any substance in these appeals.
11. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in all these appeals, hence the same is dismissed at motion hearing stage without notice to the respondent. The impugned order is affirmed. I.A., pending if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be provided to the appellant forthwith. Original of this order be kept in the record of Appeal No.SC/22/FA/596/2025 and a certified copy thereof be placed in the record of all the other appeals being decided by this common order (Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Pramod Kumar Varma) President Member /03/2026 /03/2026 Pronounced on: 13th March 2026 All appeals dismissed. Page 7 of 7