JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Insurance Company has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu, (for short 'the State Commission') vide which the appeal bearing No. 3622/2014, titled as Surjeet Singh Khorana vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., preferred by the respondent No. 3, was accepted and compensation of Rs. 2.25 lakhs was awarded.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint was filed by respondent No. 3 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jammu (for short 'the District Forum') on 12.02.2009, claiming compensation for damage to the vehicle bearing registration No. JK02U-0505, in an accident. The complainant submitted that the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 3.50 lakhs, with validity from 16.11.2006 to 15.11.2007. When the vehicle was on way from Jammu to Ramban, it met with an accident on 12.03.2007 near Nashri (District Ramban). FIR No. 19/2007 was registered for the accident on the same day. Even the petitioner/insurance company was also informed about the accident immediately. More than one year after the accident, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide intimation dated 12.09.2008. Aggrieved against the same, complaint was filed before the District Forum. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 26.09.2014. Order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission. The appeal was accepted and the respondent No. 3/the complainant was awarded compensation for damage to the vehicle on "non-standard basis". It is the aforesaid order of the State Commission which has been challenged by the Insurance Company by filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had produced on record the driving licence bearing No. 5336/RBN which was valid from 27.05.1991 to 26.05.1996 and thereafter renewed up to 16.06.2001. Driver of the vehicle was Joginder Paul Singh. The date of accident was 12.03.2007. Though the driving licence was renewed later on w.e.f. 31.03.2007 to 30.03.2012, however, on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence. Hence, the order passed by the State Commission deserves to be set-aside. The District Forum while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v/s Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, AIR 2009 SC 2987 had rightly rejected the complaint. However, the State Commission had relied on judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahu V. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 2090, which is not applicable to the facts of the case. The kind of violations of the terms and conditions of the policy, which are covered in terms of the judgment, will not include lack of driving licence but only violation regarding route permit or overloading.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that he had produced ample evidence on record to show that when the driver of the vehicle was engaged, he had seen the driving licence and also that the driver knew the driving properly. This is even established from the fact that he was having driving licence which according to the Insurance Company was not valid for certain period in between. Otherwise for the period prior to the date of accident and subsequent also, he had valid driving licence. Mere non-renewal thereof, even if the argument of the Insurance Company is accepted, will not mean that the driver had forgotten how to drive. The claim was only for damage to the vehicle. It is not on account of death of the driver. The State Commission has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahu's case (supra), wherein reliance was placed upon the guidelines issued by the Insurance Comp