Mr. Justice B.B. Vagyani, President—This appeal filed by the original O.Ps. in Complaint No. 90/2001 is directed against the order dated 10.1.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum Amravati, whereby Insurance Company is directed to extend the double accident benefit to the widow of the deceased. We propose to dispose of the appeal at the admission stage. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:

Deceased Narendersing Bisansing Sahani had taken a double accident benefit insurance policy. He died on 5.1.2001 in an accident. The insurance policy was in force when deceased died in an accident. Deceased sustained serious head injury and died. Widow of the deceased submitted a claim to the Insurance Company. Insurance Company paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the widow of the deceased. However, the Insurance Company refused to extend double accident benefit to the widow mainly on two grounds (1) that the deceased had no driving licence at the time of accident, and (2) deceased drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

2. After having received unfavourable reply from the Insurance Company widow of the deceased filed Complaint No. 90/2001 before the District Consumer Forum, Amravati. The Insurance Company resisted the complaint. District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Original O.Ps. have come up in appeal.

4. We heard the learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi for the LIC and Mr. M.G. Patkar, Advocate for the respondent/org. complainant. The learned Advocate Mr. Vidyarthi for the LIC vehemently submitted that in absence of driving licence, the District Consumer Forum should have rejected the complaint. He further submitted that the deceased had committed breach of law by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

5. In order to buttress his submissions, he diverted our attention to the Police report submitted by the Investigation officer indicating that deceased was rash and negligent while driving the scooter and invited fatal accident. In support of his arguments the learned Advocate Mr. Vidyarthi relied upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of Smt. Jayamma v. LIC of India & Anr. in III (2004) CPJ 59 (NC)=R.A. No. 2261/03 dated 10.3.2004.

6. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Patkar for the respondent/org. complainant supported the impugned order under challenge. He submitted that the deceased had valid driving licence on the date of accident. According to him, the LIC failed to discharge its burden. In support of his arguments, he relied upon following decisions:

(1) LIC of India & Anr. v. Manju Devi, reported in IV (2004) CPJ 826=2005 (1) CPR 252, Bihar State Commission.

(2) Kalyani Swain v. The Divisional Manager, LIC or Anr., reported in II (1997) CPJ 70, Orissa State Commission.

(3) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kishan Bhai, reported in I (2005) CPJ 81 (NC)=2005 (1) CPR page 40 (National Commission).

7. We gave anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar. It is to be noted that the First Information Report or any other report prepared by the Investigating Officer is not a conclusive proof of rash and negligent driving. The First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence. First Information Report is meant for setting criminal law in motion. The First Information Report and the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer cannot be acted upon without independent evidence. The police paper is not a legal evidence. The Insurance Company is required to prove rash and negligent act of the deceased by independent legal evidence. Failure to place on record the driving licence does not conclusively lead to an inference that the deceased did not hold a driving licence at all on the date of accident. The National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (referred supra has held that where Insurance Company seeks to de