1. This is a revision petition against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission, Chennai in appeal No.706 of 2000. The matter relates to a serious accident involving a lorry on 19.11.1998. In this accident four person had died. A case was registered against the lorry Driver, who admitted his fault in a proceeding before the Judicial Magistrate and was imposed a fine for the same. The vehicle was insured with the present respondent, New India Assurance Company Ltd., who repudiated the claim under the policy for violation of terms and conditions thereof. 2. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore did not accept the reasons given for repudiation by the Insurance Co and allowed the complaint of the present revision petitioner. It directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.91,869/- towards the claim under the policy, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 3. In the appeal against the above order, the State Commission disagreed with the District Forum and rejected its conclusion that Mohd. Jaffer was driving the truck at the time of accident. It has also observed that “It is rather strange and unbelievable that in a major accident where four coolies died and others seriously injured the alleged driver Mohd. Jaffer was unscathed.” Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the complaint dismissed. 4. We have seen the records and heard the counsels for the two parities to this Revision Petition. Counsel for the RP argued that in the proceedings before the MACT Sali has accepted that he is the cleaner and Jaffer (mentioned therein as Shaber) was the driver. Counsel for the opposite party, New India Assurance Co, pointed out that the FIR does not mention the driver by name but mentions that he was injured. 5. The case of the RP is that – (a) The State Commission has wrongly interpreted the entries in the accident register of Govt. Hospital Sankari. (b) The respondent insurance company has already settled the claim of the other parties injured /killed in this accident. Now, it is estopped from raising the objection which should have been raised in those proceedings. (c) The order of the State Commission is contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in B.V.Nagraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, 1996 ACJ 1178. 6. It is seen from the records before us, that the FIR did not mention the name of the Driver. Though, subsequently, one Sri M.Jaffer appeared before the Court of Magistrate, Sankari on 17.12.1998 and paid the fine of Rs.9,000/- in CC No.245 of 1998. The entries in the Accident Register of the Govt. Hospital, Sankari on the date of the accident i.e. 19.11.1998 show the name of Sali son of Hanifa age 48 years as a lorry Driver. In the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claim, Coimbatore, H. Sali was the petitioner and the New India Assurance Company had contested as the 3rd Respondent. We find from the order of the MACT in this case that a certificate had been filed to show the injuries suffered by the Petitioner before the MACT in this accident, claiming that the petitioner had himself driven the lorry. However, the MACT went by the fact that the 1st Respondent, M.Shabar had admitted his guilt and paid the fine. This clearly refers to the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankari and payment of fine by M.Jaffer, mentioned in an earlier part of this order. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a representation was made before the MACT that the Petitioner H.Sali was himself driving the truck at the time of the accident. Therefore, we cannot accept the plea of the Revision Petitioner that the insurance company is estopped from raising it in subsequent proceedings. 7. Coming to the claim of misinterpretation of the Accident Register by the State Commission, we find that the Commission has assigned greater credibility to the entries in this register as it was the earliest documentary evidence of who drove the vehicle. The reports of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and that of the Surveyor of the Insurance Company are subsequent in time and have rightly been rejected by the State Commission. On this point, the State Commission has also noted that in an accident in which four persons were killed, it will not stand to reason that the driver Mohd. Jaffer could have escaped unscathed while the cleaner Sali was hospitalized with serious leg injuries. 8. We come finally to the law as enunciated in B. V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Co, cited by the Revision Petitioner. In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has detailed the Doctrine of Fundamental Breach. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was carrying 9 persons while the policy did not allow carrying of passengers and limited the total number of persons (only employees) to 6. The insurance claim was repudiated on this ground. It was held that – “It is plain from the terms of the Insurance Policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver. If those 6 workmen when traveling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the Insurance Company on occurring of an accident, how could those added person be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was carrying. In the present case the driver of the vehicle was not responsible for the accident. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident.”” 9. The impugned order does not in any manner conflict with the above principle. It has not justified repudiation of the claim on the ground of the lorry carrying coolies in it but on the ground that the cleaner of the vehicle was driving it when the accident occurred. This certainly is a fundamental breach. 10. We therefore do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, passed in Appeal No. 706/2002. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.