1.       This Revision Petition by Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., the Opposite Party in the Complaint (for short “the Insurance Company”) is directed against the order dated 19.11.2015, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 182 of 2015.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Insurance Company.  In effect, the order appealed against, i.e. order dated 20.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Shimla (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.89 of 2012, preferred by the Respondent/ Complainant, is maintained.  By the said order, the District Forum, while holding that in view of the report of the Surveyor (Annexure OP-3) the Complainant was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,84,063/- from the Insurance Company on account of loss caused to his vehicle in the accident on 04.08.2010, had allowed the Complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant the stated amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till payment, besides Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of undue harassment and mental agony and Rs.2500/- towards litigation costs.  

2.       The core issue arising for consideration in the instant case is whether the Insurance Company could repudiate the claim on the short ground that the driver of the subject vehicle, namely, an M&M Max Pick Up 2010, was not holding a “light goods vehicle” license but only a “light motor vehicle” license and, therefore, there was a fundamental breach of the insurance policy conditions?  Since, in our opinion, the issue is no longer res integra, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, particularly when the claim preferred by the Complainant, amounting to Rs.2,20,355/-, expended by him on repairs of the vehicle on account of accident on 04.08.2010, had been repudiated on the aforesaid ground.  

3.       Recently, an identical question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2015) 2 SCC 186, relied upon by the State Commission, while dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company.  Referring to its earlier decisions, particularly in S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 7 SCC 62, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability merely because there was no endorsement to drive a “light commercial/goods vehicle” on otherwise valid driving license to drive “light motor vehicle”. 

4.       In view of the said authoritative pronouncement, which, in our view, is on all fours to the facts at hand, and bearing in mind the quantum of the compensation awarded, viz. Rs.1,84,063/-, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction.      

5.       Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.