{
  "id": 4810934,
  "title": "₹3.5L motor insurance claim despite invalid licence",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/01/3-5l-motor-insurance-claim-despite-invalid-licence",
  "topic": "business",
  "section": "Business",
  "published": "2026-09-01T06:38:54.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Economic Times",
    "slug": "the-economic-times",
    "url": "https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/insure/insurer-rejects-motor-insurance-claim-citing-invalid-driving-licence-policyholder-fights-back-and-wins-rs-3-5-lakh-in-consumer-commission/articleshow/133670767.cms"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "A motor insurance claim of ₹3.5 lakh was rejected by the insurer due to doubts about the driver's licence validity. However, the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favour of the policyholder, directing the insurer to pay the amount with interest and compensation for mental harassment. The vehicle, a Skoda New Laura Ambiente 1.8 TSI, was insured for an IDV of ₹6.95 lakh and the policy was in effect from March 9, 2014 to March 9, 2015.\n\nThe accident occurred on October 12, 2014, and the damaged car was taken to an authorized Skoda service centre, which estimated repair costs of around ₹5.28 lakh. The insurer rejected the claim, claiming the driver had a fake licence and held two licences simultaneously, which violated Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act. However, the Commission determined that the insurer did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the driver's deliberate violation of policy terms.\n\nThe Commission noted that Section 6 of the Act restricts a person from holding two licences at the same time, and violation is punishable under Section 182 of the Act, which includes imprisonment and fines. The Commission distinguished between violations of the Motor Vehicles Act and breaches of the insurance policy by the vehicle owner, stating that the former cannot be used to avoid the latter's liability.\n\nThe Commission also considered a surveyor's assessment of the vehicle damage, which was less than the policyholder's claim. The insurer's failure to explain their depreciation calculations and labor charges further undermined their case. The Commission found that a merely technical breach, such as holding two licences, could not defeat the indemnity provided by the insurance policy.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}