Through these petitions purportedly u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the original complainant seeks to assail the order dated 21.11.09 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, Camp at Una (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeals no. 574/07 and 581/07. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the appeals filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the order and award dated 08.11.07 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una camp at Amb granting certain ..3.. compensation to the complainant in two complaints filed by him in regard to damage sustained to his insured vehicle due to two accidents on different dates. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Office has reported delay of 41 days in filing these revision petitions, but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner there is no delay in filing the petitions if limitation is computed from the date when the certified copy of the impugned order was supplied to the petitioner. Even if, we accept this position and hold that there is in fact no delay in filing the revision petitions, still we do not find any merit in the present petitions because the insurance company had repudiated the claims lodged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy inasmuch as the driver of the vehicle at the time of both the accidents, namely, Manoj Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle. In fact the licence held by him and purportedly issued by the Motor Licencing Authority, Mathura was found to be a fake driving licence on verification from the said Authority. The said Motor Licencing Authority had never issued the driving licence to Manoj Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the said licence was renewed by the Motor Licencing ..4.. Authority of Amb, District Una and, therefore, the licence should be treated as a valid and effective driving licence and in any case the owner of the insured vehicle was not expected to verify the factum of genuineness or otherwise of the driving licence when he employed Manoj Kumar as driver. We do not see any merit in this contention because as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the recent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut – (2007) 3 SCC 700 where originally the licence was a fake one, the renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. The said decision squarely covers the facts of the present case and, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claims. In these circumstances, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petitions are dismissed accordingly.