This revision petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, on the merits. The reason is that the point involved in the petition is short one and pertains to validity of the driving licence possessed by the Driver of the respondent. The respondent is original claimant and had filed Complaint No.166 of 2009 under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The case of the respondent was that his Jeep vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 23 GA 0936 was duly insured with the petitioner. The Jeep vehicle met with accident on 22.12.2006. An FIR was lodged at Ringas Police Station (District Sikar). The Jeep was completely damaged during the course of accident. Though due claim was putforth with by the respondent, yet appellant –insurer repudiated the claim. The appellant contended that Driver of the Jeep vehicle was not holding valid licence at the time of accident, therefore the claim could not be considered. The contention of the respondent (claimant) was that the vehicle was a light motor vehicle and, therefore, though it was used as goods vehicle yet the licence with the Driver was valid because it was for LMV. The District Consumer Forum rejected the claim and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Driver had no valid licence. The District Consumer Forum relied on observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Vs. Prabhu Lal, 2008 (1) RLW SC 697. The respondent (claimant) preferred appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the appeal in part. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the Jeep vehicle was a private vehicle and therefore, the observations in the case “National Insurance Company Vs. Meena Agarwal” as relied upon by the respondent and reported 2009 ACJ 666 are not applicable in the situation of the present case. Feeling aggrieved this revision petition is filed by the insurer company. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is pertinent to note that petitioner is a private insurance company. The exclusion clause as enumerated in General Exception of the policy of the insurance company reads as follows:- “General Exceptions The company shall not be liable under this policy in respect of 1. ………………. 2. ……………… 3. …………….. a) …………….. b) being driven by or it for the purpose of being driven by him/her in the charge of any person other than a Driver as stated in the Driver’s Clause” On perusal of the conditions of the policy it is manifestly clear that if the driver of the vehicle is not shown to be authorized under the law to drive the said vehicle then the insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the loss to the insuree in any manner. The question involved in the present case is that whether the licence held by the driver of the vehicle, which was valid for LMV could be treated as valid for the purpose of driving Jeep vehicle, which was being used for transportation of goods. The Jeep vehicle was being used as a pick-van and the goods were being transported in the vehicle at the relevant time is not a fact in dispute. The Jeep vehicle was being driven by driver-Tarachand, who, admittedly, was holding light motor vehicle driving licence. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides that the vehicle can be driven as transport vehicle or goods vehicle only if there is proper endorsement made by the licensing authority on the driving licence. Section 3 (1) of Motor vehicle Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab, or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. It is manifested that there was no proper driving licence with Tarachand to allow him to validly drive the goods vehicle. The question is not whether the vehicle was light motor vehicle or otherwise. The question is whether the driver obtained proper endorsement to use the vehicle for driving it as a goods vehicle. The learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464, in which it is clearly stated that light goods vehicle was covered under the terms of effective licence because the driver was holding the driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. This view is expressed because of the reason that the amendment carried out in 1989 Rules, was held to be prospective in operation i.e. post 2001. Thus, since that case was covered under the period prior to such amendment the licence was regarded as valid one. The fact situation in this case is on different footings. The Motor Vehicle accident occurred after the amendment i.e. on 22.12.2006. Needless to say, amended Rules are applicable. Therefore, for carriage of goods, if the vehicle is used, the driver’s licence must bear necessary endorsement so as to make it effective. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Kumar Rajak, III 2008 CPJ 191 in which this Commission held that if a Maxicab was being used as transportation vehicle the driving licence was required to be duly endorsed. It was further held that without such endorsement the driver cannot ply transport vehicle, therefore the Insurance Company was absolved from liability to indemnify the claimant. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vas. Angad Kol and Others (in Civil Appeal No.1102 of 2009), the Apex Court also considered the question regarding validity of the licence and held that the non-approval by the authority and valid licence for driving of the goods vehicle would amount to breach of the contract. What appears to is that the State Commission committed error while distinguishing the case of the National Insurance Company Vs. Meena Agarwal” on the ground that in the given case it was a private vehicle used for commercial purpose and that in the present case the vehicle was not insured as private vehicle but was insured as light motor vehicle. It does not cause any substantial change in the exclusion clause of the policy. We are of the opinion that the driving licence was not duly endorsed by the competent authority so as to permit the driver of the respondent’s vehicle to validly drive the goods vehicle. There was no warrant to allow the claim for compensation. The State Commission should not have disturbed the finding of the District Forum. Taking overall view, we are of the opinion that this revision will have to be allowed. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored. No costs. | 
