The case of the complainant, Mrs. K. Lakshmi is as follows. Insurance policy Ex. A1 was issued in favour of her husband Late Shri K. Nagamalleshwar Rao and the validity period of the policy was from 4.8.2006 to 3.8.2007. Accident took place on 1.9.2006 at 1.30 p.m., during the currency of the insurance policy resulting in the death of the husband of the complainant. A case was registered. There was a collision between the two vehicles. The offending Zeep, which was carrying 12 persons, had dashed against the car, as a result of which the deceased died in the accident. This is an indisputable fact that the driver of the vehicle Amrutha Reddy was having only a learning licence on the date of accident and the complainant’s husband K. Nagamalleshwar Rao was sitting by the side of the driver.
2. According to the rule, a person having learners’ licence driving the motor vehicle, must be accompanied by a person who holds a valid driving licence and he should be sitting by his side. The complainant could not produce the valid licence of her husband. Inquiries were made from the RTI, but it appears that his name and licence did not appear therein. The State Commission has allowed the complaint.
3. The counsel for the petitioner/OP, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., has citied the following authorities:
1. “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Musharaf Alam (2012 2 CPR (NC) 473
2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, 2007- LAWS (SC) -11-39
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut 2007-LAWS (SC)-3-39.”
4. We are of the considered view that the State Commission erred in awarding compensation to the petitioner. The State Commission submits that opposite party has not proved that the complainant’s husband was not having a valid driving licence. This assumption is all wet. It was for the complainant to prove his case. The case of the complainant must stand on his legs. On the contrary, the opposite party tried to find out his driving licence, but the same could not be traced. In absence of the licence of the complainant’s husband, the case of the petitioner does not stand proved.
5. The presumption made by the District Forum that Ex. A8 permanent driving licence was issued after a lapse of six months based on Ex.A7. The State Commission came to the conclusion that licence issued after a period of six months will validate the above said accident and it will have to be assumed that he was having a permanent licence on the date when the accident occurred.
6. We locate no substance in these findings. Take a person, who does not have any driving licence, but after six months he gets the licence, would it validate the accident occurred?
7. Before the State Commission, has been cited the authority, ‘Jitendra Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.’ and another reported in 2003 (6) SCC 420. This authority is not applicable to this case. Only those authorities should be cited, which apply to the case.
8. Under the circumstances, we accept the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the trial court and dismiss the complaint. However, there shall be no order as to costs. | 
