The national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a revision petition filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd, upholding the Gujarat state consumer commission’s order directing the insurer to pay Rs15 lakh insurance claim with 9% interest per annum and Rs2,500 as compensation and cost to the family of a deceased rickshaw owner-driver who died in a road accident.
The NCDRC bench comprising Dr Inder Jit Singh (presiding member) and Dr justice Sudhir Kumar Jain (member) ruled that Bajaj Allianz General Insurance could not repudiate the claim merely because the deceased’s driving licence was not produced, noting that it was lost in the accident and that the insurer had failed to make any effort to verify its validity with the regional transport office (RTO).
The commission found no merit in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance’s appeal against concurrent findings of the district consumer commission, Palanpur, and the state consumer disputes redressal commission, Gujarat, which had earlier held the insurer guilty of deficiency in service.
The case concerned Bhagwanbhai Bababhai Raval, a rickshaw-owner from Palanpur, Banaskantha, who, along with his son, died in an accident on 23 May 2021 after their vehicle collided with a jeep coming from the wrong side.
The rickshaw was insured under a policy issued by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance that covered both own damage and personal accident for the owner-driver for Rs15 lakh. Following Mr Raval’s death, his widow and parents lodged a claim under the policy.
However, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance repudiated the claim on 3 August 2021, citing the non-production of a valid driving licence. Mr Raval’s father had earlier informed the insurer that the driving licence had been lost in the fatal crash and assured that if a copy was recovered, it would be submitted.
Despite this explanation, the insurer rejected the claim without initiating any verification with the RTO or seeking an extract of the licence.
The district commission in its 2022 order, allowed the family’s complaint, observing that the insurer had acted unfairly and failed to discharge its duty to verify the facts. It held that all other documents, including the first information report (FIR), post-mortem report, vehicle registration certificate, death certificate and policy papers were duly submitted and that the accident and death were undisputed.
In its order, the district commission directed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to pay 40% to the parents of Mr Raval and 60% of the total claim amount of Rs15 lakh to Mr Raval's wife, Ashaben.
The state commission, in May 2023, upheld the district forum’s decision, ruling that it was the insurer’s obligation to verify whether the deceased possessed a valid licence. It says non-production alone could not justify rejection when the licence was lost in the accident.
The state commission also cited prior rulings of NCDRC, including Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Prabhu Desai and New India Assurance Co Ltd vs late Bhupatbhai Shah, to reinforce the principle that insurers must make reasonable efforts to verify such claims instead of relying on technical grounds to deny payment.
The NCDRC bench concurred with both lower fora, reiterating that the onus to prove the absence of a valid driving licence rests with the insurance company. It noted that Bajaj Allianz had produced no evidence showing that the deceased did not possess a licence at the time of the accident.
Quoting from the order, the commission says, “Non-production of the copy of the valid driving licence cannot be assumed to mean that the insured driver was without a valid licence. The insurance company should have tried to obtain some records from the office of the RTO to prove otherwise.”
It further held that the insurer’s failure to verify the claim amounted to a breach of the duty of good faith, adding that the contract of insurance requires both parties to act fairly and transparently.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents including Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs United India Insurance Co Ltd and Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank of India, NCDRC emphasised that its revisional jurisdiction is limited and could not be invoked to overturn concurrent factual findings unless there was illegality, material irregularity, or perversity.
Finding no such defect, the bench dismissed the insurer’s revision petition and upheld the state commission’s decision in full.
The ruling reinforces the consumer-friendly interpretation of insurance law that technical lapses or missing documents cannot be used to deny rightful claims when the circumstances are beyond the claimant’s control.
By reaffirming that insurers bear the responsibility of verification, the order underscores the need for fairness and due diligence in processing personal accident claims — especially where the insured has died in the very event covered by the policy.
“We find no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the state commission; hence the same is upheld,” NCDRC concluded.
(Revision Petition No40 of 2024 Date: 7 November 2025)
