ORDER Mr. Justice Surinder Sarup (Retd.) President: This appeal is against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, Camp at Reckong Peo, dated 10.2.2002, directing the appellant-Insurance Company to indemnify the respondent/complainant to the extent of Rs. 60,411,25 (as assessed by the Sureyor of the appellant itself) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have gone through the record. The claim for indemnification was repudiated in the present case on the ground that he driving licence of the driver Shri Chet Rama, who was at the wheel of the ill-fated vehicle which met with an accident giving rise to the claim, was not renewed by the Regional Transport Authority, Karnal (Haryana), in other words, it was a fake document. 3. Before the learned Forum below also, this objection was taken as defence in the reply to the complaint of the respondent. It has been new, tived and in our view rightly so by holding that the same is not supported by the affidavit from the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Karnal to prove his defence. Reliance has also been placed in this behalf on a decision of this Commission referred to in para-6 of the impugned order. In addition to the well-based reasons contained in the impugned order on this aspect of the case, we are further fortified by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru and others, JT 2003(2) SC 595, whereby it has been held that in order to avoid liability it is not sufficient to show that the person driving at the time of accident was duly licensed but the Insurance Company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured. According to the said decision of the Supreme Court, where the owners has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no t breach of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Company would not be absolved or its liability. In the present case, since this defence has been taken by the Insurance Company. In the present case, since this defence has been taken by the Insurance Company. It was incumbent on it to prove that the breach as regards the alleged invalidity of the driving licence was on the part of the insured, and there is no such evidence on the record. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also raised an argument that the claim was not made within one year of the date of the accident which occurred on 5.10.1997 and this was in breach of Condition No. 7 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in the present case. Elaborating this argument, he has submitted that the complaint should have been filed within one year from the date of repudiation of the claim which was done on 11.12.1998, but the complaint was filed only on 11.4.2000 i.e. more than a year later. 5. We do not find any merit in this argument for a number of reasons. Firstly, no such plea was taken in the reply filed to the complaint, nor was this point raised before the learned Forum below as is apparent from the impugned order. It also appears that the copy of the policy was not placed on record as evidence by either party more the learned Forum below. For all these reasons, the appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer cannot be allowed to fill up the gaps in this case at this belated stage of appeal, especially as it would result in prejudicing the case of the complainant/respondent on whom a vested right has accrued in view of the valid order passed by the learned Forum below in his complaint. 6. In fairness to the learned Counsel for the appellant, he has placed reliance on a decision of the National Commission in the case of Malaprabha Cooperative Sugar Factory v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2000 NCJ 406, which relates to the interpretation of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872, apart from the reasons already stated above, this decision is not applicable on the short ground that the statutory period of limitation provided under the Consumer Protection Act, i.e. two years will take precedence over any terms and conditions of the Insurance policy which cannot override the statutory period of limitation incorporated in a Central Act.7. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is disposed of.