National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Sheela Meghwal on 16 October, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/2647/2024
(Against the Order dated 3rd April 2024 in Appeal A/29/2022 of the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission Circuit bench kota)
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
PRESENT ADDRESS - SECOND FLOOR JEEVAN RAKSHA BHAWAN CHHAWANI CHAURAHA
, KOTA , RAJASTHAN ,
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHEELA MEGHWAL
PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE SUVASA TEHSIL TALEDA DISTRICT BUNDI , KOTA ,
RAJASTHAN ,
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/2648/2024
(Against the Order dated 3rd April 2024 in Appeal A/30/2022 of the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission Circuit bench kota)
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
PRESENT ADDRESS - SECOND FLOOR JEEVAN RAKSHA BHAWAN CHHAWANI CHAURAHA
, KOTA , RAJASTHAN ,
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHEELA MEGHWAL
PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE SUVASA TEHSIL TALEDA , BUNDI , RAJASTHAN ,
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
MR. JATIN KUMAR, ADV
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MR. RAM SINGH RATHORE, ADV (VC)
DATED: 16/10/2025
ORDER
1. The present Revision Petitions (RP) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the common order dated 03.04.2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Kota, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 29 and 30 of 2022 in which order dated 13.01.2022 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bundi (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 267 and 268 of 2019 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 03.04.2024 of the State Commission.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum, Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant ) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 18.10.2024. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 30.08.2025 ( Petitioner) and 17.09.2025 ( respondent) respectively.
4. The Complainant filed two Consumer Complaints before the District Commission against the OP- one for the insured amount of his car in CC No. 267 of 2019 and other claim for personal accident claim of Rs.15,00,000/- in CC No. 268 of 2019.
5. Brief facts of the case that her husband Late Tulsidas had insured his car with the OP for the period 14.10.2018 to 13.10.2019. During the existence of the policy, on 01.04.2019, the said vehicle met with an accident and was completely destroyed and husband of the complainant died in accident. In the insurance policy taken by the husband of the complainant, he had also taken a personal accident insurance policy for an addition premium of Rs.750/-. The wife of the insured Sheela Meghwal submitted a claim before the OP but the same was rejected by the OP. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed two CCs before the District Forum - one for seeking compensation for vehicle's damage in CC No. 267 of 2019 and other for seeking personal accident claim of Rs.15,000/- in CC No. 268 of 2019. The District Forum vide order dated 13.01.2022 allowed the complaint of the Complainant. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the OP filed two Appeals being Appeal No. 29 and 30 of 2022 before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 03.04.2024 dismissed both the Appeals. Therefore, the Petitioner is before us now in the present RPs.
6. Petitioner have challenged the said Order dated 03.04.2024 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) State Commission ought to have taken into consideration that terms of contract of insurance policy are to be strictly construed and the courts must not take a lenient approach while deciding the liability of the parties in insurance disputes.
(ii) State Commission erred in not considering that insurance policy / contract expressly provides under its terms and conditions that insured must abide by Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 specifically clause ( b) and ( c).
(iii) State Commission ought to have considered that deceased / insured was in violation of Rule 3 (b) of the Motor Vehicle Rules as he was admittedly driving alone on a learner's license and was not accompanied by a person / instructor having a valid driving license and the said car did not have the mandatory 'L' sign displayed on the front and back of the vehicle. The insured / deceased had a learner's license at the time of accident and hence was bound by Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
(iv) According to the set procedure and practice, it was essential for the respondent to immediately notify the petitioner / insurance company about any damage or any accident to the insured vehicle. In the present case, the respondent informed the petitioner / insurance company about the accident after a lapse of almost 40 days, which affected the petitioner / insurance company's right to undertake necessary actions such as appointment of surveyor for investigation and further determining the claim amount after assessing the damage caused to the insured vehicle.
(v) State Commission erred in placing reliance on the fact as has been provided under the FIR No.102 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 that the respondent / deceased had been driving the car alone and also in a negligent manner which contributed majorly to the said accident.
(vi) Final report presented by the policy states that driver was driving negligently which led to the accident and his death subsequently.
(vii) Counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and National Commission.
a. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandran ( 2004) 8 SCC 644.
b. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills ( P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. ( 2010) 10 SCC 567 c. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons International 2014 ( 1) SCC 686 d. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane - FA No. 321 of 2005. e. M/s HDFC Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagchand Saini - RP No. 3049 of 2014 f. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Vs. Kanwal Jeet Singh Gill -
RP No. 2983 of 2013.
g. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashalata Bowmik (2018) SCC Online SC 124 h. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha ( 2018) 9 SCC 798 i. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jhuma Saha ( 2007) 9 SCC 263
7. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
7.1 Counsel for the Petitioner apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 6 argued that insurance policy is essentially a contractual agreement and terms and conditions of such an agreement must be interpreted strictly and within the confines of the agreement itself. Further, in final report submitted by the police on 25.04.2019, it was discovered that insured / deceased possessed a learner's license at the time of accident. It expressly stated that insured /deceased passed the acceleratory, which caused his death. Counsel also relied on the following judgments :
a. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan ( 1999) 6 SCC 451.
b. General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain ( 1966) 3 SCR 500 c. Vikram Greentech ( I) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( 2009) 5 SCC 599 d. Alka Ojha Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission ( 2011) 9 SCC 438 7.2 Learned counsel for the respondent in RP No. 2647 of 2024 argued that damages for the vehicle in question has been given as per the survey report.
Further, it is argued that learner's license is a valid driving license and it was not proven that accident was caused by non-compliance with learner's license rules. In RP No. 2648 of 2024, counsel for the respondent argued that deceased / insured was having a comprehensive insurance policy from the Petitioner which covered the liability of third party and also having coverage of the deceased himself under the head of personal accident (PA) to owner/ driver/insured by paying an additional premium of Rs.750/ which covers liability of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is also argued that mere possession of learner's license is not a fundamental breach of policy conditions that would allow an insurer to avoid liability nor presumed to be negligent in a motor accident claim. Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases held that learner license is a valid driving license as has been held in National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh, wherein it has been held that defences like no driving license, fake driving license, learner license is not available to the insurance company. It is also argued that it is not proved by the petitioner insurance company that accident was caused by non-compliance of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act nor insurer filed any investigation report nor any repudiation letter was available on record. Further, deceased was having coverage under the personal accident insurance by paying an additional premium to the petitioner insurance company.
8. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act with respect to driving the vehicle with a Learner License which envisages that such learner must be accompanied with a person holding a regular driving license and 'L' should be fixed on the vehicle. It is also contended that the intimation to the Insurance Company was given with a delay. The insured driving the vehicle with a Learner License, unaccompanied by a person with a regular license and the vehicle having not pasted 'L' on it is not disputed. However, learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that these were not material violations and hence, the fora below were justified in allowing the claims.
9. The District Forum vide its order dated 13.01.2022 allowed both the Complaint Nos. CC/267/2019 and CC/268/2019 observing that the Learner's Licence is a valid License and the Insurance Company could not prove that non-compliance of the Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 contributed to the accident. The State Commission also made similar observations, endorsing the orders of the District Forum. Relevant extract of the orders of the District Forum is reproduced below:
4. On behalf of the opponent Insurance Company, Anil Jain's affidavit has been submitted in evidence.
5. Both parties arguments were heard and the file was reviewed.
6. The facts related to the insurance policy issued and its validity during the accident and the extent of damage to the vehicle remain undisputed. The only objection by the opponent insurance company regarding the claim rejection is that the deceased was driving with only a learning license, without complying with Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which was a violation of the insurance policy terms.
7. The complainant has referred to the National Insurance Co. / Swaran Singh, SLP Civil 902/2003 decision dated 04.01.04 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, stating that a learning license is valid, and the alleged non-compliance with Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 did not contribute to the accident. Thus, rejecting the claim on this basis is a service deficiency.
8. Upon review, it is clear that the vehicle owner / insured had a valid learning license at the time of the incident. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's principle established in National Insurance Co. / Swaran Singh ( cited), a learning license is considered valid. The opponent insurance company could not prove that non-compliance with Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, contributed to the accident.
Therefore, rejecting the claim on this ground reflects a service deficiency and the complaint is acceptable.
10. In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below as regards deficiency on the part of Insurance Company is concerned and the finding that accident was not caused due to non-compliance with Learner's License Rules. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments[1] that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate ( revisional ) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisonal jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
11. After careful consideration of the orders of the State Commission, the District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties, we are of the considered view that the Foras below have passed well-reasoned orders and we do not see any reason to interfere with their findings. Hence the order of the State Commission is upheld. Accordingly, both the Revision Petition Nos. RP/2467/2024 and RP/2648/2024 are dismissed.
12. Pending IAs in both the cases, if any, also stand disposed of. [1] Ruby (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson ( India ) Limited and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 286, T.Ramalingeswara Rao ( Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31 ..................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN MEMBER