PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1839 of 2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Luxmi Food by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant got insured his car No.HR-61/2958 from the OP for a period from 24.8.2005 to 23.8.2006. Car met with an accident and FIR was lodged on 7.5.2006. The complainant also informed OP about the accident. OP appointed Surveyor. Complainant submitted claim along with documents, but OP repudiated claim on the ground that Mahesh Kumar driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint. OP contested complaint and alleged that driver of the vehicle was not having L.T.V. licence at the time of accident and was having driving licence for Motor Cycle, Scooter, Car and Jeep, which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and prayed for dismissed of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed OP/petitioner to pay Rs.1,64,455/- along with interest and Rs.2,200/-, as litigation charges. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident, petitioner has not committed any error in repudiating the claim and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint; hence, revision petition be accepted and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law, as driver of the vehicle was possessing valid driving licence; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that vehicle was Maruti Omni Cargo Car and Mahesh Kumar, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was holding Licence No. 8392 issued on 2.4.1996 for Motor Cycle/Scooter/Car/Jeep and was valid upto 13.12.2013. Accident occurred on 7.5.2006. Now, the important question is; whether driver of the vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, or not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on AIR 2009 SC 2151 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and Ors. in which, it was held that if a person is having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a commercial vehicle unless his driving licence subsequently entitles him so to do. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on AIR 2008 SC 1418 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors. in which it was held that if the driver is possessing L.M.V. licence, it cannot be said that he was not possessing effective driving licence to drive Matador van having goods carriage permit. 6. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors. case (Supra), accident took place on 9.12.1999, before amendment of Rules on 28.3.2001 and in such circumstances, it was held that amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle, in question, cannot be said to be invalid in law. We agree with the proposition laid down by the Honle Apex Court in the aforesaid case, but this case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because in the present case accident took place on 7.5.2006, i.e., after amendment of Rules in 2001. Honle Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and Ors. case (Supra) has considered National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors. case (Supra) and ultimately held in paragraph 17 as under: 7. The effect of the different terms of licences granted in terms of the provisions of Section 2(14) and 2(47) has also been noticed by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal MANU/SC/4527/2007 : air 2008 SC 614, stated : 30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a ransport vehicle It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a oods carriageand was thus a ransport vehicle The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorised to drive light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation. XXX XXX XXX 37. The argument of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, Ram Narain had no valid and effective licence to drive Tata 709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3). Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a vehicle is ight motor vehicle but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required and hence, he could not have driven Tata 709 in absence of requisite endorsement and the Insurance Company could not be held liable. 38. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of transport vehicle under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in question 7. It was further observed in paragraph 18 as under: 18. From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is, thus, evident that it is proved that respondent No.6 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence for driving a goods vehicle. Breach of conditions of the insurance is, therefore, apparent on the face of the records. 8. Thus, it becomes clear that on the date of accident, driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle, as no endorsement was made on his driving licence to the fact that he is permitted to drive transport vehicle also and in such circumstances, petitioner has not committed any error in repudiating claim. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, as the licence was issued in 1996 and was valid upto 2013, there was no occasion for the driver to get any endorsement, as light motor vehicle also covered transport vehicle at the time of issuance of the licence. This argument is devoid of force, because it is to be seen; whether driver was holding a valid driving licence required under the law for driving a particular type of vehicle at the time of accident. Admittedly, driver was driving a transport vehicle and his driving licence did not contain endorsement regarding permission to drive transport vehicle. Effect of subsequent amendment can be illustrated by an illustration. uppose, a licence is issued to drive a vehicle falling within the purview of light transport vehicle according to weight and later on by amendment, particular weight of vehicle is covered by medium motor vehicle, then in such circumstances, a person holding light motor vehicle licence cannot drive medium motor vehicle after amendment, though, he was permitted to drive a vehicle of that much weight falling with in definition of Light Motor Vehicle at the time of grant of driving licence 10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident and petitioner/OP has not committed any error in repudiating claim of the complainant/respondent and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and revision petition is to be allowed and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 11. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 31.1.2012 passed by learned State Commission and order dated 26.10.2010 passed by District Forum are set aside and complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.