PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 07.07.2008 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1235/2008 M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. R. Suguna by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent husband H. Srinivasa, owner of Motor Cycle No.KA-14-U-2526 obtained insurance policy from OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 27.11.2006 to 26.11.2007 along with personal accident cover for Rs.1,00,000/-. Deceased H. Srinivas was holding valid driving licence and was not disqualified from holding driving licence. On 9.3.2007, H. Srinivasa met with road accident due to rash and negligent driving of another vehicle being run by one Raju and H. Srinivas succumbed to injuries. Complainant lodged claim, but OP/petitioner repudiated claim. Alleging deficiency on the part OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs were proceeded ex-parte and District Forum passed ex-parte order on 6.10.2007, which was later on recalled on the application of OPs. Later on, OP filed reply and admitted issuance of policy, but submitted that complainant husband was not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident; hence, not entitled to get benefits under the personal accident coverage and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with 10% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, owner-driver was covered under the policy and learned District Forum wrongly allowed complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant husband obtained policy from OP with personal accident coverage of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also not disputed that on the date of accident i.e. 9.3.2007, insured was not possessing valid driving licence as it had already expired on 5.11.2005. 6. Now, the main question to be decided in this case is as to whether; deceased was entitled to personal accident coverage inspite of not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident. 7. Section 3 of the package policy reveals that in case of death of owner-driver of the vehicle in direct connection with the vehicle insured, etc., he was entitled to 100% compensation. The proviso 1 of Section 3 runs as under: . This cover is subject to: (a) The owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein; (b) The owner-driver is the insured named in this policy; (c) The owner-driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, at the time of the accident. This proviso makes it very clear that owner-driver means, he must be registered owner of the vehicle and his name must be shown as insured in the policy and further, owner-driver must hold effective driving licence at the time of accident. 8. Driver has been defined in the package policy as under: RIVER : Any person including the insured Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 9. Thus, it becomes clear that insured will be treated as driver only when he holds effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Thus, it becomes clear that insured should not have only hold valid driving licence at the time of accident, but should also not have been disqualified from holding driving licence. Learned District Forum allowed complaint on the basis that deceased was not disqualified from holding or obtaining licence which is apparently not proper interpretation of the word wner driver 10. Learned State Commission observed that if accident is not on account of negligence of the insured, insurance company cannot repudiate liability whether insured had licence or not. Apparently, this observation is not in accordance with law. In the case in hand, complainant is claiming personal accident benefits under the package policy which are admissible only when insured was possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident. As insured was not possessing valid driving licenced at the time of accident, petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 11. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order date 7.7.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1235 of 2008 M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. R. Suguna is set aside and complaint stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.