Petitioner insurance company was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Complainant/respondent got his vehicle insured from the petitioner on 27.09.2006 for the period from 27.09.2006 to 26.09.2007.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 22.10.2006.  Claim lodged by the respondent was repudiated by the petitioner on 30.11.2006 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a

valid and effective driving license.   Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          Petitioner after being served entered appearance and filed its Written Statement reiterating the pleas taken in its letter of repudiation dated 30.11.2006.  It was further stated that the claim was rightly repudiated and the complaint be dismissed.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint on 31.5.2007.

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed by the impugned order.

          Notice for today’s hearing sent to the respondent has been received back duly served.  None is present on behalf of the respondent.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

          The vehicle in question was a ‘Taxi’.  License of the driver had the endorsement ‘License to drive other than transport vehicle is valid”.  The driver had license to drive Light Motor Vehicle.  He could drive a vehicle other than transport vehicle.  The vehicle in question was registered as a ‘Taxi’.  So on the relevant date, the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid license to drive the vehicle in question.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Co. Ltd.                            Vs. Kusum Rai & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 250”  and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC)” has held that if the driver holding Light Motor Vehicle’s license drives a commercial/transport vehicle and meets with an accident, then the insurance company is not liable to reimburse the owner of the loss suffered by him. 

Respectfully following the view taken by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments, it is held that since the vehicle which was a ‘commercial vehicle’ was being driven by a person who did not have a license to drive commercial vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to reimburse the loss suffered by the respondent due to damage caused to the vehicle.  Revision petition is allowed.  Order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.