Delay of 52 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          The claim of the respondent/complainant was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that the person who was driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving license on the date of accident.  The State Commission has held that the driver had a valid driving license on the date of accident.  The State Commission has recorded the following findings:

-2-

9.                Evidently, the complainant while admitting the driver into service obtained a Xerox copy of driving license Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 got it verified from Additional Licensing Authority, Khammam confirmed that the license relates to V. Sambasiva Rao and he was having heavy motor vehicles license and the same was renewed till 9.4.2004.

10.           The complainant while making the claim enclosed a copy of the driving license furnished to it to the insurance company.  The surveyor sought for verification of driving license by addressing a letter to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Vijayawada vide Ex.B1.  The licensing authority after verifying the same found that it relates tone “P. Venkanna, S/o Valavaiah”.  The driving license report is Ex. B2.

11.           It is very important to note that while Sri. Sambasiva Rao, the driver of the complainant had driving license bearing NO.1296/KM/1989.  The surveyor sought the driving license particulars pertaining to No.1296/VJA/1989.  In other words, while the driver of the complainant had obtained the driving license from Khammam Offie, the surveyor had mistakenly sought for particulars from Vijayawada region.  May be the driving license bears the same number but however the officers of places differ.  Naturally it cold not have been the particulars of complainant’ driver.  Basing on mistaken particulars furnished in the light of the letter of the surveyor, the claim of the complainant was rejected.  This is unjust and illegal.  In the first instance the insurance company ought to have verified the particulars from the office of Licensing Authority at Khammam when the complainant’s driver obtained the driving license from the Licensing Authority at Khammam, the insurance company could not have sought for particulars from Vijayawada Office.  Undoubtedly, there would be a discrepancy.  The complainant could establish that the driving license is genuine in view o the very certificate issued by the Licensing Authority at Khammam vide Ex.A10.  Therefore the repudiation of claim on the said ground is unjust.” 

  The license issued at Vijaywada had been got renewed by the Licensing Authority at Khammam.   Exhibits A-9 and A-10 clearly prove that the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving license.  We agree with the view taken by the State

-4-

Commission and find no infirmity in the impugned order.  Dismissed.  No costs.