ORDER Oral: Justice Surinder Sarup (Retd.), President - 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District forum, Shimla, Camp at Solan dated 23.10.2000, as a result of which the appellant- Insurance Company has been directed to indemnify the respondent to the extent of Rs. 34,950/- with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 1-02-1998 till realisation alongwith litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. We have heard the leaned Counsel for the parties and we have examined the record. The case arises out of repudiation of claim for indemnification by the appellant in a case of accident to a Tanker bearing registration No. HPA-2335 which was admittedly insured with the appellant at the relevant time. As a result of the accident, the said Tanker is stated to have rolled down into a deep gorge and could not j be salvaged. In other words, it was a case of total loss. On the claim having been made by the respondent for indemnification, the appellant Insurance Company repudiated the same on the ground that on verification, it was found that the driver of the said Tanker was not I holding a driving licence for driving a Heavy Goods vehicle, instead he f was holding a valid driving licence for driving a medium transport vehicle only. This led to the filing of the complaint by the respondent, in which the defense taken in the reply by the appellant was the same as stated above. However, the learned Forum below rejected the said defense of the appellant resulting in the impugned order and hence the present appeal. 3. As per the evidence on the record, which has been discussed at length in the impugned order, the unladen weight of the t Tanker, in question, has been shown as 6175 kgs in the copy of the R. I C. vide Annexure-D. The definition of a Light Motor Vehicle, (LMV), which includes medium transport vehicle, like the Tanker in the instant case, as contained in section-2 (Sub section 21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988/1989 is to the effect that it is 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 7,500 . kgs. kgs. It is in these circumstances that the learned Forum below has | rightly taken the view that the Tanker in the instant case would not fall I in the category of Heavy Goods Vehicle (H.G.V.) as alleged on behalf of the appellant, but would be a Light Motor Vehicle, thus the driving licence in the present case duly authorises the person driving the | Tanker at the time of accident to do so. 4. On behalf of the respondent, his learned Counsel has cited case law. In Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and others, AIR 1996 SC 2627, it has been held that where a vehicle was being driven by unauthorised person allowed by licensed driver who was employed by the owner of the insured vehicle, incase of accident, Insurance Company cannot escape liability to third party on ground of contravention of condition in policy. He has also cited the case of B.V. Nagarota v. oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional officer Hassan, (1996) 4SCC 647. In that case it was held that unless there were some factors which by themselves had gone to contribute to the causing of accident, the misuse of the vehicle, though somewhat irregular, was not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract of insurance. That case arose out of a complaint under the Consumer law. 5. Moreover, we find force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that it was for the appellant-Insurance Company to prove that the insured i.e. respondent was well aware of the fact that the driver employed by him was not conditions of the insurance contract in the present case. In other words, having taken the said defense there, it was incumbent on the appellant-Insurance Company to prove by congent evidence that despite having the knowledge that the driver, in question, was not having a driving licence | as per the terms not having a valid driving licence, the respondent 1 allowed him to drive the ill-fated vehicle! This onus the appellant has " miserably failed to discharge. For the reasons recorded above, we find no error in the impugned order insofar as awarding of the assessed amount towards loss of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 34,950/- as well as litigation cost of Rs. This onus the appellant has " miserably failed to discharge. For the reasons recorded above, we find no error in the impugned order insofar as awarding of the assessed amount towards loss of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 34,950/- as well as litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- are concerned, but the impugned order is modified to the extent that the interest @ 18% per annum would run from the date of the complaint i.e. 10.9.1998 instead of 1.2.1998. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.