It is not disputed before us that the complainant/petitioner got his commercial vehicle bearing Registration No.MP-23-D/5869 comprehensively insured with the petitioner, which met with an accident near Aurangabad on 15.7.2002 during the currency of the insurance policy.  Petitioner informed the respondent about the accident, who appointed a surveyor.  Petitioner claimed the sum of Rs.90,000/-, which had been spent by him for getting the vehicle repaired.  Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.18,928/-.  Claim was not settled by the insurance company, aggrieved by which, petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum.

          On being served, respondent insurance company put in appearance and filed its written statement.  It was averred in the written statement that Kuldeep Singh, the driver of the vehicle had two driving licences. 

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.18,928/- as had been assessed by the surveyor with interest at the rate of 9%.  Rs.1,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

The respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission came to the conclusion that Kuldeep Singh was holding two licences, i.e., DL No.K-78/R/90, which was produced by the petitioner and a driving licence No.72231 mentioned in the Load Challan dated 13.7.2002 issued by Associated Road Carriers.  The second licence was never put on record.  State Commission, from the challan issued by the Associated Road Carriers in which it was mentioned that the driver had a driving licence No.72231, concluded that the driver was holding two different driving licences at a time in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.  That the petitioner had not approached the forum with clean hands.  The appeal was accepted and the order of the District Forum was set aside with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.

Counsel for the parties have been heard. 

Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent has not produced the second licence, which was allegedly held by Kuldeep Singh, the driver of the vehicle.  The only licence which was produced on record was DL No.78/R/90.  State Commission has assumed that the driver was having another licence also on the basis of the Load Challan dated 13.7.2002 issued by the Associated Road Carriers.  No evidence with regard to the existence of the second licence was produced from appropriate licencing authority.  In the absence of the said evidence, the State Commission has erred in assuming that the driver Kuldeep Singh held a second licence No.72231 on the basis of the Challan dated 13.7.2002 issued by Associated Road Carriers.  The person who had prepared the challan was not produced.  This is only a hearsay and could not be relied upon.

For the reasons stated above, order passed by the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.

Revision Petition is disposed of in above terms.