JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh dated 28.12.2015 in FA no. 194/2015. 2. The respondent complainant being owner of vehicle no. HR-19B-0475 purchased packaged goods carrying vehicle insurance policy qua the said tractor for the sum insured Rs.7,38,400/-. The policy was valid from 27.05.2006 till 26.05.2007. 3. The respondent complainant also purchased Carrier Legal Liability Insurance Policy for the said tanker for total sum insured Rs.4,00,000/-. The policy was valid from 30.01.2007 till 29.01.2008. 4. That on 05.032007 the subject vehicle carrying diesel while being driven by the driver Dina Nath met with an accident near Lalru District Patiala. Consequently, the tanker truck suffered damage and whole of the diesel loaded in the tanker spilled out of the tanker. 5. The respondent complainant filed two separate claims against the damage caused to the subject vehicle and in respect of loss of diesel as a result of accident. Both the claims were repudiated. The complainant, therefore, filed two separate complaints. The opposite party insurance company settled the claim pertaining to damage to the tanker in Lok Adalat for Rs.24,350/-. 6. As regards the claim for loss of diesel, the insurance company appointed one Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Surveyor to assess the loss under the Carriers Legal Liability Policy. The surveyor vide his report dated 29.06.2007 assessed the value of loss of diesel to the tune of Rs.2,41,831/-. The insurance company, however, vide repudiation letter dated 16.01.2012 repudiated the claim against the loss of diesel on the ground that at the time of accident, Dina Nath was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods, which is mandatory as per Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the claim, the respondent filed consumer complaint in District Forum Bilaspur praying for direction to the insurance company to indemnify the loss of diesel to the extent of Rs.2,93,290/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- alongwith cost of litigation. 7. The petitioner insurance company on being served with notice of the complaint filed written statement denying any deficiency in service. It was pleaded that insurance claim was repudiated because Dina Nath was not having valid driving license with the endorsement authorizing him to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods. 8. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings and evidence vide its order dated 19.08.2015 dismissed the complaint. The respondent complainant being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 28.12.015 set aside the order of the District forum and allowed the appeal of the respondent by awarding insurance claim to the tune of Rs.2,41,831/- as assessed by the surveyor alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 15.02.2012 till realization of amount. The State Commission observed that petitioner insurance company in respect of same accident had already paid the own damage claim of the subject truck . Therefore, there was no justification or logic in denying the claim pertaining to loss of diesel being carried in the insured truck / tanker. 9. Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission has been passed in utter disregard of Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is contended that State Commission has failed to appreciate that at the time of accident, the subject vehicle was carrying hazardous material i.e. diesel and that the driver of the vehicle Dina Nath was not having a proper driving license with an endorsement authorizing him to drive the subject vehicle carrying hazardous material. It is argued that as the subject vehicle was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, repudiation of the insurance claim was justified. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. 12. On perusal of insurance certificate pertaining to subject insurance policy, we find that it records that policy exclusions and conditions as per Carrier’s Liability Insurance Clause are annexed. On perusal of aforesaid terms and conditions, it is noticed that policy records as under: “NOW THIS POLICY WITNESSETH that during the currency of this policy or any further period for which it may be in force subject to the limits, terms, provisions, exclusions, exceptions and conditions contained herein or endorsed hereon, the Company agrees to indemnify the insured against his legal liability for actual physical loss of or damage to goods or merchandise directly caused by fire and / or accident to the vehicle registered under MVI Act whist such goods or merchandise are actually transported in the said vehicle provided that the fire or accident has arisen on account of negligence or criminal act of his servants and further provided that the vehicle is damaged by such fire or explosion or accident and a claim in respect thereof is admitted under the motor comprehensive insurance policy covering the vehicle. The cover will commence with the loading of cargo on the vehicle and will be on force until unloading of the cargo at the discharging point or expiry of 03 (three) days after first arrival of the vehicle at the destination town whichever may first occur. Provided that the liability of the Company shall not exceed the sum of rupees as stated in the policy schedule in respect of any one accident or series of accidents arising out of any one event or occurrence nor the sum of rupees as stated in the policy schedule in respect of all claims arising during any one period of insurance but the company will, in addition, pay all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent in defending any claim made against the insured.” 13. From the above, it would be seen that subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the petitioner insurance company had agreed to indemnify the insured against his legal liability for actual physical loss or damage to the goods as a result of accident, provided the insurance claim of the insured is admitted under the Motor Comprehensive Insurance Policy covering the vehicle. Admittedly, the insurance claim submitted by the insured under the motor comprehensive insurance policy of the subject vehicle has been admitted and settled by the petitioner company in Lok Adalat. Therefore, it is evident that unless the petitioner is able to show that insurance claim falls within some exclusion or exception provided in the terms and conditions, the insurance company cannot evade its liability under the insurance claim. 14. The Exclusions clause contained in the terms and conditions of subject Carrier’s Legal Liability Policy reads as under: “EXCLUSIONS Provided always that the Company shall not in any circumstances be liable under this policy in respect of : 1. Liability under any contract or agreement unless such liability would have arisen and the insured would have been liable at law notwithstanding such an agreement under the Carriers Act 1865. 2. Liability in respect of damage to property- a. Belonging to the insured or to any servant, agents or sub-contract of the insured or to third parties unless such property is covered by a contract of carriage entered into by the insured in an approved form. b. In the control of the insured or of any servant, agent or sub-contractor of the insured unless such property is covered by a contract of carriage entered into by the insured in an approved form. 3. Liability for loss or damage arising from- a. Inherent defect or vice, including insects, moth, vermin, mildew, mould, damp, wear and tear, deterioration, spontaneous combustion or decay of perishable goods. b. Depreciation, delay, loss of market, any confiscation by a Public Authority. c. Consequential loss arising from loss of or damage to goods. d. Any consequence, whether direct or indirect or War (whether declared or not), act of foreign enemy, hostilities, civil war, rebellion, mutiny, insurrection or usurped power, civil commotion, act of god any change of law, refusal on the part of any Government, Government Agency or other competent authority to grant any necessary permit, licence or sanction or deciding to revoke or qualify any such permit. In the event of any claim hereunder, the insured shall prove that the liability arose independently of and was in no way connected with or occasioned by or contributed to by or traceable to any of the said occurrences or cause or in consequence thereof and in default of such proof the company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of such a claim. e. Any consequence whether direct or indirect of strike or riots. f. Loss or destruction of or damage to any property whatsoever or any loss or expense whatsoever resulting or arising therefrom or any consequential loss directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to by or arising from ionizing radiations or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel. g. Goods and / or merchandise which may be illicit or illegal or contraband or smuggled. 4. Any claim arising from a peril insured against under this policy unless the aggregate of all such claims arising out of each separate accident or occurrence exceeds rupees as stated in the policy schedule in which case this sum shall be deducted from the claim amount payable. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out under which clause of the above noted exclusion detailed in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the subject insurance claim falls? Otherwise also, on careful reading of the exclusions detailed above, we are of the opinion that insurance claim does not fall within the above noted exclusions. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that repudiation of insurance claim is justified because at the time of accident Dina Nath, driver of the subject vehicle was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods which amounts to violation of Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. 17. In order to succeed on this plea, the petitioner insurance company was required to show that the driving license of the concerned driver Dina Nath was not endorsed for authorizing to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods. Neither the copy of the driving license has been filed by the petitioner nor any certificate in this regard from the concerned authority has been filed. Instead, a photocopy of the extract of the driving license of Vir Singh purported to have been issued by the concerned Regional Transport Office has been filed. This document is not relevant for the subject dispute because it pertains to driving license of one Vir Singh son of Dalip Singh and not the concerned driver Dina Nath. In absence of any cogent evidence to show that the concerned driver Dina Nath was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the State Commission particularly when the insurance company has settled the insurance claim pertaining to the damage caused to the subject vehicle in the accident. 18. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. | 
