For the Petitioner : Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate Dated : 28th March, 2014 ORDER This revision is directed against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as he State Commission dated 18.7.2012 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal preferred against the order of the District Forum, Panepat and dismissed the complaint. The dispute relates to the insurance claim filed by the petitioner in respect of accidental damaged caused to his Car No.HR 06-K 2803 which was insured with the respondent/opposite party. The factum of insurance, accident and damage caused to the car is not disputed. The claim of the petitioner, however, was repudiated on the ground that Shri Darshan Lal who was driving the car at the relevant time was not having a valid driving license authorizing him to drive a car. The District Forum, Panipat vide its order dated 7.12.2006 came to the conclusion that Darshan Lal was having a valid driving license at the relevant time and allowed the complaint directing the respondent/opposite party as under: - or the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the sum of Rs.27,256/- to the petitioner together with interest @ 12% from 29.7.2005 till the realization together with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record after due compliance. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the opposite party approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint with following observations: - t is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant had furnished the photocopy of the driving license Annexure/A-3 which is duly signed by him wherein it was disclosed that the complainant was authorized to drive motorcycle with gear and scooter. Faced with the problem that he was claiming compensation with respect to the damages to his car, he secured report from the Licensing Authority, Panipat. The complainant produced the report that he was authorized to drive car but no such entry was made in the record of the Licensing Authority. The complainant has not produced any evidence in support of the said report. The Report Annexure A-4 appears to be not correct and cannot be given weightage. District Consumer Forum has erred in relying upon the report of the Licensing Authority which has been secured by the complainant on 4.1.2007 whereas on the date of accident he was in possession of the driving license which was authorized to drive motorcycle and scooter only and not car. Under these circumstances, the complainant has failed to place on the record the cogent and convincing evidence in the form of Register of driving tests for the car license as well as register showing the entry pertaining to his driving license of car issued to the complainant and the payment with respect to the additional fee for obtaining the license of car. In absence thereof, it cannot be relied upon. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that he was authorized to drive car on the date of accident and as such the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. Hence, this appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Learned Shri Punit Jain, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is not sustainable for it is based on incorrect appreciation of the facts. It is contended that the State Commission while allowing the appeal has failed to appreciate that Darshah Lal was having a valid driving license authorizing him to drive the car issued by the transport authority, Panipat. In support of this contention he has referred to the photocopy of the license issue registered maintained in due course at licensing authority at Panipat which was placed on record by Shri Vikram Singh, Clerk of the Licensing Authority pursuant to the directions issued by this Commission. It is argued that on perusal of the aforesaid document it is evident that a driving license authorizing Darshan Lal to drive a motor vehicle/jeep valid from 7.3.2005 till 31.3.2018 was issued. Learned Shri K.L. Nandwani, Advocate on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He has contended that the claim of the petitioner was rightly repudiated on the basis of the report of the surveyor stating that Darshan Lal was not holding a valid driving license at the relevant time. He has also submitted that the District Forum concerned has imposed the interest @ 12% p.a. and compensation of Rs.10,000/- which is on higher side particularly in view of the fact that the repudiation was based on the surveyor report. There is merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. On perusal of the photocopy of the relevant register maintained by the Licensing Authority, it transpires that Darshan Lal S/o Sh. Amolak Ram was issued a driving license authorizing him to drive a motor vehicle/jeep valid from 7.3.2005 till 31.3.2018. The accident took place on 10.7.2005. Therefore, it is obvious that at the relevant time Darshan Lal was having a valid driving license. The State Commission has failed to take note of this fact. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner has contended that the District Forum has committed an error in awarding interest @ 12% p.a. on the insurance claim as also the compensation of Rs.10,000/- ignoring the fact that the respondent opposite party had repudiated the claim because of the report of the surveyor to the effect that the concerned driver was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. In view of the above submission, I am of the opinion that the awarding interest on the insurance claim and also the compensation of Rs.10,000/- is not justified. Accordingly, I modify the order of the District Forum and while maintaining the major part of the order, I set aside the order granting compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.