ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.9.1999 passed by the District Forum, Tehri, Garhwal whereby the complaint of the complainant was rejected. 2. The claim was rejected on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. 3. The Truck No. UP-08-2279 of the complainant had met with an accident during the insurance period. The driver and the owner of the goods in the vehicle died. The vehicle was a commercial vechicle. The complainant has claimed a loss for Rs. 62,069/- as cost of repairs and Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and financial loss. It is alleged by the Insurance Company that the licence of the driver of the vehicle Sh. Shakti Prasad was called for on date itself but it was not produced, therefore, the claim was repudiated. 4. During the course of proceedings in the Forum, copy of the licence of the driver was produced. He was authorised to drive light motor vehicle from 4.6.1994 to 3.6.1997. The accident took place on 23.8.1994. The vehicle in dispute was medium motor vehicle, therefore, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence, therefore, the claim was repudiated and on this ground the Forum also rejected the complaint. 5. Being aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been filed. 6. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company referred the ruling reported in III (2003) CPJ 99 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ladu Kishore Sahu; II (1999) CPJ 13 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan; III (2003) CPJ 290, Manager, State Bank of India v. P. Karuppian & Anr., of State Commission Tamil Nadu; and I (2003) CPJ 389, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. Arumugam, State Commission, Tamil Nadu and two judgments of this Commission itself reported in III (2003) CPJ 503, Kamal Singh Panwar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and III (2003) CPJ 287, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nazir Ahmad. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant referred the ruling reported in I (2003) CPJ 204 (NC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramdhan Aggarwal, in which the driver was not having valid driving licence, therefore, the claim, was repudiated. The National Commission directed to pay 75% of the assessed amount. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant referred the ruling reported in I (2003) CPJ 204 (NC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramdhan Aggarwal, in which the driver was not having valid driving licence, therefore, the claim, was repudiated. The National Commission directed to pay 75% of the assessed amount. In this case none of the parties have filed the assessment report of the Surveyor. Even otherwise the ruling is ditinguishable on the ground that the driving licence was not proved to be fake by the Insurance Company but here in this case the was driver holding a driving licence by which he was not authorised to drive the vehicle which he was driving and the accident took place as a result of the driving of the vehicle itself. It slipped in the Khudh. The slipping of the vehicle in the Khudh is the direct result of the driving of the driver, therefore, no claim can be awarded to the complainant on non-standard basis. In the judgment the claim has been allowed on non-standard basis, because the accident was not the direct result of the driving but here in this case the accident is the direct result of the driving of the driver. Even otherwise the complainant has not produced any voucher before this Commission to show his actual expenses. He has alleged that the bills were produced to the Insurance Company. There was also the Surveyor report but all these papers are not on the record and in the absence of any document we are unable to award any compensation to the claimant. The appeal has got no force and is hereby dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed. ___