United India Insurance Company Limited, the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (District Forum for short) are the petitioners in this revision petition. They are challenging the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (State Commission for short), in which the petitioner/Insurance Company have been directed to reimburse the claim of Rs.1,32,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its payment and in addition to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation, besides another sum of Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation. The dispute is in a very narrow compass. The insured truck of the respondent-complainant met with an accident on 1st of February, 1998. An FIR was registered in the concerned police station and the petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Company, on being informed, appointed a surveyor. The surveyor assessed the loss on account of damage to the truck at Rs.1,68,000/-. The claim, however, was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license. Dissatisfied with the repudiation of the claim, the respondent-complainant knocked the doors of the District Forum and filed a consumer complaint before it, which was opposed by the petitioner-Insurance Company. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence before it, the District Forum overruled the objection of the petitioner/Insurance Company that the driver at the time of the accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license and directed them to honour the claim in the terms stated above. Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner/Insurance Company had challenged the District Forum’s order before the State Commission, who vide the impugned order dismissed their appeal. It is in this background that the opposite party/Insurance Company have filed this revision petition challenging the order passed by the fora below. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company, referring to the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question, has contended that as per entries in this Registration Certificate the vehicle belonged to ‘MDV’ class of vehicle, which is in the category of ‘medium goods vehicle’. The unladen weight reflected therein is 4050 Kgs. whereas the gross vehicle weight is 10050 Kgs. Referring thereafter to the driving license, which is the document under dispute, learned counsel contends that as per entry in this driving license the driver was authorized to drive a light motor vehicle belonging to the commercial category but as per Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 such light commercial motor vehicle has to have a gross weight of less than 7500 Kgs. In support of his contention, he has referred to Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under :- “ “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.” (Emphasis supplied) According to the learned counsel, while the District Forum has erroneously held that the driver could drive any commercial vehicle except heavy motor vehicle, the State Commission has erred in relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh [AIR 2004 SC 1531], which was not relevant to the facts of the case, as the said judgment was passed in the context of a claim in respect of third party, which is not the case here. He submits that both the fora below have exceeded their jurisdiction in allowing the complaint, which deserves interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional power under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant has submitted that the surveyor appointed by the petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Company in his report has stated that the driver was in possession of a ‘LMV (Commercial)’ license which was valid upto 12th of May, 1999 and the accident having taken place on 1st of December, 1998, the surveyor himself opined as under :- “Verification of particulars of D.L. No. C-96050539 as per computer for Ins. Purposes” Owner Name :- Sh. Sohan Lal S/o :- Sh Jai Prakash R/o :- 487/50, Peeragarhi, N. Dli Category :- LMV (Comml) only Validity :- 12-5-1999 from 13-5-1996 26-3-99 Sd/- LDC/MLO WZ. RTO, N. Delhi In view of the foregoing, we are of the views, the above driving license No. C-96050539 mention in the title is in order, as per the RTO record and admissible only on those comml. Vehicles, where the vehicle unladen weight does not exceed 7500 Kgs.” He, therefore, contends that the District Forum had very rightly held that the driver at the time of accident was legally entitled to drive a transport/commercial vehicle other than a heavy goods vehicle. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on a plain reading of provisions of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, we are of the view that a driver who holds any LMV driving license would be entitled to drive a light commercial/transport vehicle only if the gross laden weight and NOT unladen weight of the vehicle is below 7500 Kgs. The surveyor has failed to correctly interpret the provision of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It has two distinct parts; the first part refers to transport vehicle or omnibus for which reference is to be made to their gross weight below 7500 Kgs. while the second part relates to a motor car or tractor or road roller and it is only in these cases that unladen weight of less 7500 Kgs. is applicable. In this case, the laden gross weight of the vehicle is 10050 Kgs.; much higher than the prescribed upper limit of 7500 Kgs. under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and even the Registration Certificate states it to be a medium goods vehicle for which the respondent-complainant did not have a valid driving license. It would be relevant here to point out that in a case involving an auto-rickshaw delivery van which was in the category of a goods transport vehicle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another [(2008) 8 SCC 253] has held that the driver not holding appropriate license i.e. for the correct kind/class of vehicle which caused the accident, the insurer cannot be held liable. In view of the aforesaid ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court and in consonance with a number of orders passed by this Commission on similar lines and further holding that the case of Swaran Singh (supra) is not applicable because it pertained to a third party claim, we cannot but hold that both the fora below have grossly erred in allowing the complaint. Their orders are, therefore, set aside and the revision petition is accepted, resultantly the complaint is dismissed. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.