PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. There is a delay of 22 days in filing the Revision Petition. Arguments heard. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay for the reasons, mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. 2. Let us now turn to the merits of this case. Smt. Seema Sharma had a transport vehicle, which was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited-Respondent/OP. The insured declared value was in the sum of Rs. 1.40 lacs. During the pendency of the Insurance Policy, the accident took place with the said vehicle. The vehicle was driven by Mr. Manoj Kumar. He succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead. 3. The licence of Mr. Manoj Kumar was produced, which is Ex.R-3. In R-3 it appears that the date of birth of the driver was 12.10.1985 whereas as per his Matriculation certificate, his date of birth was 12.10.1987. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that this was issued by manipulation. The driver was only 16 years of age. The licence is given to the person, who is of 18 years. He contended prima facie, this fact speaks for itself. 5. We see no merit in this submission. This is the matter between the I.T.O. and the Insurance Company. The I.T.O. must have made an enquiry and must have issued the licence after verifying all the facts. This is not our concern. The petitioner-Insurance Company may take up cudgels with the transport authority. A licence was produced and there is nothing on the record that the same is fake. 6. The record also shows that the second licence was also produced on his behalf, which does not show that he was entitled to drive the transport vehicle. However, we will keep our focus on the first licence, which shows that he was allowed to drive transport vehicle w.e.f. 17.05.2006 i.e. prior to accident. The judgment reported in the case of “United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Lehru and others [2003 (3) SCC 338]” clearly applies to this case. If a person shows the driving licence containing all the particulars, then the owner will stand satisfied and will not make further enquiry. No fault can be attributed to the owner of the vehicle. 4. The Revision Petition is meritless and the same is, therefore, dismissed. | 
