AVM Jonnalagadda Rajendra, Avsm, Vsm (Retd), Member

1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula („State Commission‟) dated 27.09.2017 in FA No. 957/2016 dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/OP and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar, („the District Forum‟) order dated 26.08.2016 which partly allowed the complaint.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainants, are that Ajit Singh (since deceased), was the registered owner of Motorcycle No. HR-14H- 6894 and obtained an insurance policy No.111281131130100005836 from United India Insurance Company Limited (OP/Insurer") from 08.11.2013 to 07.11.2014, with the total sum insured being Rs. 29,000. An additional premium of Rs.50 was paid to cover the personal accident risk of the owner-driver, in the event of death while driving the insured vehicle. On 01.04.2014, while Ajit Singh was driving the said motorcycle at Village Badli, District Jhajjar, the vehicle met with an accident, resulting in severe damage to the motorcycle and fatal injuries to Ajit Singh, who succumbed on the same day. FIR No.140 was registered at PS Sadar Bahadurgarh on 02.04.2014. The complainants lodged a claim with the OP Insurer seeking Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation on account of the death of their son. However, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 12.06.2015, treating the matter as "no claim," which, according to the complainants, amounted to clear deficiency in service. Consequently, they filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, 1986, seeking directions to the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000 with interest @ 18% per annum, Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony and harassment, and Rs.5,500 as litigation expenses.

4. In its written version, the Insurance Company raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction of the District Forum. While admitting that the motorcycle was insured for the relevant period and that the accident occurred on 01.04.2014, the OP contended that intimation of the accident was given belatedly on 09.05.2014 by Manjit Singh, brother of the deceased, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that Ajit Singh did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive a motorcycle, as he was authorised only to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) commercial vehicles, and on these grounds prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 26.08.2016 partly allowed the complaint with the following directions:-

                          "5. In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it has been observed that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the respondent who wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the genuine claim of complainant on some baseless grounds. We, therefore, direct the respondent to make the payment of personal accident cover for owner-cum- driver Ajit Singh i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per motorcycle/ scooter package policy Ex. R-7 to the complainants on account of death claim of their son along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death of life assured Ajit Singh i.e. 3.4.2014 till realization of final payment to the complainants. The complainants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly."

6. Being aggrieved by the District Forum order, the OP filed Appeal No.957 of 2016 and the State Commission vide order dated 27.09.2017 dismissed the Appeal with following observations:

                          "8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service.

                          9. Admittedly, Ajit Singh son of the complainants was the registered owner of motor cycle bearing registration No.HR- 14H-6894 Company, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit R-7, regarding the period and that vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party-Insurance from November 08th 2013 up to November 07th 2014 mentioning the Admittedly, the above mentioned motor cycle met with an accident on total Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle as Rs.29,000/- April 01st, 2014 in the area of Village Badli, Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh when Ajit Singh was driving the motor cycle vehicle. The motor cycle was badly damaged and Ajit Singh also sustained multiple serious and grievous injuries on his body and he succumbed to the injuries. Matter was reported to the Police on April 02nd 2014 and First Information Report No. 140 (Exhibit P-2) was lodged in Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh on April 02nd 2014. In this way, it stands proved that the accident took place during the insurance period and on account of injuries sustained at the time of accident, Ajit Singh lost his life. It is evident from the insurance policy Exhibit R-7 that after receiving extra premium amount of Rs.50/-, risk of the driver-owner of the vehicle was covered under this insurance policy up to an amount of Rs.1.00 lac in case of death of driver-cum registered owner of the vehicle. In this way, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy (Exhibit R-7), the complainants being parents and nominees of the insured are entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1.00 lacs as compensation on account of death of their son. The insurance claim of the complainants was repudiated by the opposite party vide repudiation letter dated June 12th, 2015 (Exhibit P-6) mainly on the ground that Ajit Singh was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the motor cycle and that information was given to the Insurance Company very late on May 09, 2014 regarding this accident. Repudiation letter was issued on the basis of investigation report submitted by Manoj Kr. Agnihotri (Exhibit R-3). It is evident from the copy of driving licence issued in the name of Ajit Singh (Exhibit R-4) that Ajit Singh was issued a driving licence by the Transport Department Government of NCT of Delhi regarding the period from June 13th, 2013 up to June 12th, 2016, authorizing him to drive LMV commercial vehicles.

                          10. Version of the opposite party is that a person if willing to drive a motor cycle, he should have got issued a driving licence, with a specific endorsement authorizing him to drive motor cycle also. Learned District Forum has given findings that no separate driving licence is needed to drive a motor cycle vehicle and a person having a driving licence to drive LMV vehicle certainly can drive a motor cycle vehicle also. Practically we also feel that if a person has skill to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) vehicle, he can drive motor cycle also skillfully. We also do not feel that to drive a motor cycle vehicle, there is need of a separate driving licence. On this point of controversy, a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 5826 of 2011. Mukand Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited, decided on July 03rd 2017, also supports the version of the complainants in this regard.

                          11. As per view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukand Dewangan's case (Supra) if a person is having a driving licence authorizing him to drive LMV commercial vehicle, he do not need a separate driving licence to drive the other transport vehicles of that class/category the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. No case law was cited on this point of controversy on behalf of the opposite party-Insurance Company. Resultantly, findings are given that the insurance claim of the complainants has been wrongly repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that Ajit Singh was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive a motor cycle vehicle at the time of accident. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kiranjeet Kaur @Kiranjit Kaur 2017(3) CPR 588 (NC).

                          12. Admittedly, the accident took place on April 01st, 2014. F.I.R. (Exhibit P-2) was lodged on April 02nd, 2014 without any delay immediately. The complainants have taken plea that the Insurance Company was informed regarding this accident within time. The opposite party has taken plea that intimation was received regarding accident of the motor cycle vehicle on May 09th, 2014 and on that date Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, was appointed as surveyor. Even if version of the opposite party is believed, even then, information was received by the opposite party regarding this accident after 38 days from the date of accident. In our view, on the basis of delay in submitting information to the Insurance Company also, the insurance claim of the complainants should not have been repudiated, particularly, in the circumstances as the Police was informed regarding this accident immediately. It was not a case of theft of the vehicle. It was a case of accident and investigation regarding this accident, in fact, was the job of the Police. Moreover, in this case it is admitted fact that the accident took place on April 01, 2014 and on account of the injuries sustained at the time of accident, Ajit Singh, driver cum owner of the vehicle lost his life.

                          13. Even otherwise, the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority IRDA), which control and regulates the Insurance Companies, issued direction not to reject the genuine claims simply because of delay in registration of FIR and intimation to the Insurance Company. In the instructions of the IRDA it was mentioned that claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss However, this assessment provisioning, claim settlement etc. condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances. The insurer's decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. Support to this view can be taken from the case law cited as Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited vs. Ms. Monu Yadav and another, 2014(4) PLR 861, decided by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. As per facts of that case, the delay in lodging claim with the Insurance Company was of 54 days. The findings in that case were also given in favour of the claimants on the basis of the guidelines issued by IRDA. The Insurance Companies were advised that they must not repudiate such claims on the ground of delay especially when the Police have been promptly informed in this regard.

                          14. It is very clear from the circular that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers' to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely procedural grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policy holders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation. It has been further advised in the above said letter that the insurers must not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained, recorded. What is the spirit of Insurance Policy should be kept in mind by the officials dealing with the genuine claims of the sufferers and the same should not be rejected on methodological grounds in a mechanical manner. The tendency of Insurance Companies in rejecting genuine claims is the reason of increasing litigation between the insurers and the insured/their legal heirs. In this case the repudiation of complainant's claim was contrary to the instructions issued by the IRDA, mentioned above.

                          15. As a result, as per discussions above in detail, we have no hesitation in holding that the Insurance Company should not have repudiated the claim of the complainants on the above mentioned ground. In these circumstances, we find no illegality and invalidity in the impugned order dated August 26th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum. Findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

                          16. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any."

7. Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 27.09.2017 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner/OP has filed the instant Revision Petition bearing no.448 of 2018.

8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/OP argued that the deceased, Mr Ajit Singh, had insured his motorcycle Registration No. HR-14H-6894 with the Petitioner Insurance Company vide Policy No. 111281131130100005836 for the period 08.11.2013 to 07.11.2014 for an IDV of ₹29,000, which also included a Personal Accident Cover of ₹1,00,000 for owner-driver, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. During the currency of the policy, the insured met with an accident on 01.04.2014 and succumbed to injuries on 03.04.2014. FIR No. 140 dated 01.04.2014 was registered at PS Sadar Bahadurgarh, whereafter the Respondents/Complainants, the deceased‟s parents, lodged claims for own damage and personal accident cover. Upon intimation, the Petitioner appointed a licensed surveyor who assessed the vehicle loss at Rs.18,513.85 vide report dated 09.09.2014, and an investigator verified that the deceased was holding a driving license valid only for LMV (Commercial) and not for motorcycle, which constitutes a distinct class of vehicle under Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive a motorcycle at the time of the accident, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 12.06.2015. However, the learned District Forum erroneously allowed the personal accident claim of Rs.1,00,000 with 9% interest and litigation costs, holding that a person authorized to drive LMV could also drive a motorcycle, and the said findings were mechanically affirmed by the learned State Consumer Commission while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 decided on 03.07.2017. Evidently, the precedent relied on is wholly inapplicable in the present case since the said judgment only clarifies that no separate endorsement is required for transport vehicle within the LMV class and does not dispense with the statutory requirement of a specific license for motorcycle as a separate class under Section 10(2). It is a statutory mandate that any person driving a motor vehicle, shall possess a valid Driving License for such class. An LMV and a Motorcycle are distinct in category and be no stretch of expansion, it can be concluded that a person holding a Driving License for Light Motor Vehicle (four wheeler) can drive a Motorcycle, or vice versa. She asserted that the impugned orders are, therefore, perverse and contrary to statutory provisions. Even the observations regarding delay in intimation were irrelevant to the ground of repudiation. Further, the Petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Akram Hussain & Ors., ILR (2011) V Delhi 437, which squarely addresses the present case that a license for LMV does not authorize driving of a motorcycle. Hence, the present Revision Petition deserves to be allowed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9. On the other hand, despite service, none appeared on behalf of the respondents and they were accordingly proceeded ex parte vide order dated 02.03.2026.

10. We have carefully examined the pleadings, associated documents placed on record, including the Complaint and order of both the fora below and have rendered our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. The main issue arising for determination in the present Revision Petition is whether a person holding a Driving Licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) - Commercial is legally authorised to drive a motorcycle? And, consequently, whether repudiation of the Personal Accident Cover on the ground that the deceased did not possess a valid motorcycle driving licence was within the scope if the policy?

12. Under Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vehicles are classified into distinct categories, inter alia, motorcycle without gear, motorcycle with gear, Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and transport vehicle. A motorcycle constitutes a separate and distinct class of vehicle from an LMV. The definition of "Light Motor Vehicle" under Section 2(21) of the Act refers to a transport vehicle or omnibus whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 kg, or a motorcar, tractor or road-roller within prescribed limits. A motorcycle does not fall within this definition. Thus, on a plain reading of the statutory provisions, an LMV licence does not automatically authorise the holder to drive a motorcycle unless there is a specific endorsement to that effect. The State Commission relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Supra) which clarified that a person holding an LMV licence is competent to drive a transport vehicle of that class having a gross weight not exceeding 7500 kg without requiring a separate endorsement. However, it did not lay down that an LMV licence authorises driving of a motorcycle. It dealt with the interplay between LMV and transport vehicle categories and not with motorcycles as a separate statutory class. Further, in M/s. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018 decided on 06.11.2024), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that while there is a limited overlap between LMV and transport vehicle categories, licensing must be strictly interpreted in light of the classification under Section 10(2) of the Act. The decision in Mukund Dewangan was upheld, but nothing therein dilutes the statutory distinction between LMV and motorcycle categories.

13. In the present case, it is undisputed that the deceased was holding a licence for LMV (Commercial) and did not possess an endorsement authorising him to drive a motorcycle. The motorcycle is a distinct class under Section 10(2)(a) and (b) of the Act. The Personal Accident Cover for owner-driver under the policy is expressly subject to the condition that the insured must hold a valid and effective Driving Licence for the class of vehicle being driven at the time of the accident. Therefore, in the absence of a motorcycle endorsement, it cannot be said that the deceased held a valid and effective licence to drive the motorcycle in question. The finding of the State Commission that no separate licence is required to drive a motorcycle if a person holds an LMV licence is contrary to the clear statutory scheme. The reliance placed on Mukund Dewangan (Supra) was misplaced, as it pertains to LMV and transport vehicles and not to motorcycles. Since motorcycle is a separate class requiring specific authorisation under Section 10(2), driving the same without such endorsement amounts to absence of a valid and effective driving licence for that class of vehicle. In such circumstances, repudiation of the Personal Accident claim by the Insurance Company cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order passed by the State Commission suffers from material irregularity being contrary to the statutory provisions and the settled interpretation of licence classifications. The Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the State Commission dated 27.09.2017 in F.A. No.957/2016 and the order passed by the District Forum dated 26.08.2016 in C.C. No.178/2015 are set aside and the consumer complaint stands dismissed.

15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

16. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.