PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07/04/2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 4220 of 2010 M/s. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Shivashankar & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner, owner of passenger van KA-27/8744 got it insured from OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 for a period of one year from 4.8.2008 to 3.8.2009. The vehicle was financed by OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2. Vehicle met with an accident on 22.7.2009 at 4 A.M. FIR was lodged and intimation was given to OP No. 1. Complainant incurred expenses of Rs.1,99,035/- in repairs and submitted claim which was repudiated by OP No. 1. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that vehicle was driven by Umesh at the time of accident who was not possessing valid driving licence. It was further submitted that vehicle was carrying 19 passengers against the capacity of 12 passengers and in such circumstances; claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 submitted that no claim has been filed against him and prayed for dismissal of complaint. District forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint partly and directed OP No. 1 to pay 75% of the assessed damages of Rs.86,982/- along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint. Appeal filed by the OP No. 1 was allowed by State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Respondent No. 2 was deleted on the request of petitioner. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at the admission stage and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of accident, vehicle was driven by Bairappa and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by Umesh, who was not possessing valid driving licence; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. It is not disputed that petitioner vehicle was insured by Respondent No. 1 and vehicle met with an accident during subsistence of insurance policy and petitioner incurred expenses in repairs of the vehicle. 7. Now, the main question is who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In FIR lodged by one injured Basavaraj, it has specifically been mentioned that vehicle was driven by Umesh. It appears that after investigation, challan was filed against Bairappa instead of Umesh. In FIR, this fact has specifically been mentioned that driver himself sustained injuries. Injured persons filed MACT claim and Motor Accident Tribunal decided all claims by order dated 29.11.2011 and held that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as vehicle was driven by Umesh at the time of accident who was not holding any driving licence to drive the said vehicle. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner admitted that no appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the order of Motor Accident Tribunal. In such circumstances, it can be very well inferred that at the time of accident, Umesh was driving vehicle who was not holding driving licence to drive the vehicle. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in holding that Umesh was driving the vehicle and he also sustained injuries. 8. Petitioner has not placed on record injury report of Bairappa which could have proved the fact that Bairappa was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and in such circumstances; it is proved that Umesh was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Petitioner has also not placed on record driving licence of Umesh. As there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, learned State Commission rightly allowed appeal and dismissed complaint. 9. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.