Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent on admission.

          A Maruti Zen owned by petitioner-firm insured with respondent-Insurance Company met with an accident on 16^th October, 2002 during currency of insurance.  As insured vehicle suffered damages, while submitting bills issued by Prem Motors petitioner-firm claimed Rs.92,848/-.  Claim was, however, repudiated by respondent-Insurance Company for Smt. Sushila Bhatia, who was driving vehicle at the time of accident, holding not a valid and

-2-

effective driving license.  Against repudiation of claim, a consumer complaint was instituted before District Forum, which was resisted by respondent-Insurance Company.  As petitioner had a case before fora below that driving license of motorcycle held by Mrs. Sushila Bhatia was upgraded by licensing authority on 29^th October, 2001 and no tangible evidence could be produced, efforts made by even fora below directing licensing authority to put on record evidence about upgradation of license had failed.  District Forum as such on consideration of issues agitated by parties while accepting claim directed respondent-Insurance Company to pay Rs.92,848/- together with interest @ 9% per annum.  When matter was carried in appeal by respondent-Insurance Company, State Commission suspecting genuineness of endorsement made in driving license, upgrading license issued for motorcycle to that of a vehicle, while upsetting finding of District Forum allowed appeal.  It is how that petitioner is in revision before us.

          During pendency of proceedings in National Commission direction was issued to petitioner to put on record evidence about endorsement of upgradation of driving license of Mrs. Sushila Bhatia having been made after due drive test and also payment of requisite fee.  We are told by learned counsel for petitioner with the aid of a copy of application filed before licensing authority that no required information could be made available by licensing authority.  Respondent-Insurance Company has not produced any evidence

-3-

worth consideration to satisfy us that endorsement made on original license of Mrs. Sushila Bhatia upgrading license was not worth consideration and in view of endorsement made thereon, driving license held by Mrs. Bhatia was invalid for car.

Regard being had to contentions raised at bar, while upsetting finding recorded by State Commission we restore that of District Forum and revision petition in the circumstances succeeds with no order as to cost.