Challenge in these proceedings purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is to the order dated 11.12.209 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal -2- Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No. 403 of 2007. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 7.8.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jodhpur in the complaint filed by Smt. Vidhya Devi seeking compensation for alleged deficiency in service on the part of insurance company in not settling her claim arising out of an insurance policy taken by her husband-Shri Narsingh Dass in order to cover Hero Honda motor-cycle, who died at the time of driving the said motor-cycle when it met with an accident. The District Forum had dismissed the compliant filed by the complainant and upheld the repudiation of the claim on the ground that the deceased-Narsingh Dass, owner-driver of the motor-cycle, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. In the appeal, the State Commission has set aside the said finding and order of the District Forum and has allowed the complaint by directing the insurance company to pay to the complainant the amount under insurance policy alongwith interest @9% per -3- annum besides Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed the present proceedings. 2. We have heard Mr. S. K. Ray, learned counsel representing the petitioner-insurance company and Mr. Devendra Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. 3. Mr. S. K. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order as wholly illegal and unjustified on the ground that the State Commission has erred in taking into account the provisions in regard to the Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for the owner-driver, which could not have been invoked and in any case, was not attracted once it was established that the owner-driver was not holding an effective and valid licence at the time of accident. The State Commission after quoting the provisions in regard to the Compulsory Personal Accident Cover, made an attempt to cover the case of the complainant under the said cover by observing as under:- “While analyzing the provision, it is clear that the Personal Accident Cover is issued only where the owner of -4- the vehicle holds an effective driving licence. It further says that Personal Accident Cover cannot be granted wehre the owner-driver does not hold an effective driving licence. It is clear from the above provision that Insurance Co. was required to see the driving licence first and then to issue policy cover. The presumption has to be drawn that the insured was having a driving licence and because of this the Personal Accident Cover was issued by the Insurance Co.” To say the least, the observation made by the State Commission is wholly untenable in as much as onus has been cast upon the insurance company to have verified the existence of valid and effective driving licence while issuing the insurance cover for the motor-cycle. That apart, Mr. S. K. Ray has invited our attention to a decision rendered by the same bench of the State Commission in another appeal bearing No. 745 of 2007 titled as ‘Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Smt. Fori Bai’ wherein the bench took an altogether different view i.e. in variance to the view taken by it in the present case. This Commission also does not expect the State Commission passing divergent order in cases having similar circumstances. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside as legally unsustainable.As a consequence, -5- the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is affirmed. However, in the peculiar circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.