ORDER Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President: - Controversy involved in this appeal is very narrow. Mr. Bhasin learned counsel for the appellant urged that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was holding a driving licence where under he was authorised to drive Light Motor Vehicle and Medium Motor Vehicles. He was not authorised to drive a Light Transport Vehicle under the licence held by him, (the driver). 2. Vehicle being insured at the time of accident under the Insurance Policy was not disputed by the appellant at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. Facts are noted in detail in the order of the forum below, as such we are not repeating those, these are accepted by the parties. But where-ever it is necessary for the disposal of this appeal, such facts will be taken note of. 4. While buttressing his submission that the driver was not holding a valid licence, Mr. Bhasin laid stress on the provision of Sections 2 & 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended up-to date. Another ground to allow this appeal urged by Mr. Bhasin was, that two gratuitous passengers were traveling in the vehicle at the time of accident. All these pleas were controverted by Mrs. Thakur on behalf of the respondent. Per her this case is squarely covered by decisions of the Supreme Court of India as well as of this Commission. We may also observe that Mr. Bhasin also placed reliance on two decisions of the National Commission, and one of the Honble Supreme Court in support of this appeal. Reference to all these will be made to these appropriately hereinafter. 5. We will first take up plea regarding gratuitous passengers being carried and thus appellant being not liable for payment of any compensation, when a reference is made to the cover note, it shows that the premium was charged by the appellant to cover the risk in respect of one driver, one cleaner and four labourers in addition to the third party property damage. In these circumstances unless it was shown that by carrying gratuitous passengers violation was of such a nature which was fundamental in its character appellant can not escape its liability. If the submission of Mr. Bhasin is taken to its logical end, it will defeat the purpose of beneficial legislation like Consumer Protection Act. In these circumstances unless it was shown that by carrying gratuitous passengers violation was of such a nature which was fundamental in its character appellant can not escape its liability. If the submission of Mr. Bhasin is taken to its logical end, it will defeat the purpose of beneficial legislation like Consumer Protection Act. When labourers were carried, premium having been charged by the appellant qua the so called gratuitous passengers appellant want to be exenerated. Another reason to negative this plea of Mr. Bhasin is that it is not the case of his client that gratuitously carried passengers in the vehicle at the time of accident was the sole, absolute as well as the only cause of accident. Accordingly plea urged by Mr. Bhasin in this behalf is hereby rejected. 6. Now coming to the other plea of driver holding a licence authorizing him to have driven a Light Motor Vehicle instead of Light Transport Vehicle. Plea as raised in the present case was also raised in Appeal No. 155 of 2002 before this Commission in the case of Angdu Ram v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another. While allowing the appeal after following the decision of Supreme Court in case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3181 the appellant was allowed compensation with interest. Relevant extract of these Judgment is as under- “2. The finding in the impugned order is that there was breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy because the driver Gian Chand was not authorised to drive a good Vehicle. Since he possessed a driving licence for light mother vehicle only. The finding is erroneous in as much as the it is mentioned in para 6 of the impugned order itself that as per the Registration Certificate the vehicle involved in the accident in the present case was a Light Motor Vehicle (TPT). In our considered view, there is hardly any difference in the authorization in the driving licence i.e. L.M.V. (NTP) and the Registration Certificates of the concerned vehicle i.e. LMV (TPT). It is in respect of such type of a vehicle that the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3181 apply with full force. It is in respect of such type of a vehicle that the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3181 apply with full force. The said authority has been taken notice of in the impugned order but has been wrongly distinguished. Rather, the learned Forum below has placed wrong reliance on the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 2000, Himachal Pradesh 91, the portion of which has been reproduced in extant so in the penalty-mate paragraph of the impugned order. 3. Another ground which weighed with the learned Forum below on this aspect of the case is that it is proved on the record that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was carrying vegetables from Bhuntar to Mandi which itself shows that it was being used as a transport vehicle at the time of the accident. In our considered view, one solitary instance of carrying of vegetables at the time of the .unfortunate accident would not make the vehicle in question as a transport vehicle. We also do not agree with this finding in the impugned order. Now the question remains is to what compensation for the loss caused to the appellant as a result of the accident is to be awarded to him quantum-wise. The best piece of evidence in our view in the report of the surveyor on the record who has assessed any recommended the loss to the extent of Rs. 40,357/. For the aforesaid reasons, were allow this appeal. Set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the sum of Rs. 40,357/- to the appellant with 9% interest on the same from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.6.2001 till realization. The appeal is disposed of in these terms." 7. On examination of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 3181 (supra), we are of the view that this decision covers the present case squarely and at the same time it also negatives plea urged by Mr. Bhasin. In addition to this in the face of this decision of the Supreme Court no benefit can be extended to the appellant on the basis of decisions of the National Commission in the cases of United Insurance Co. Bhasin. In addition to this in the face of this decision of the Supreme Court no benefit can be extended to the appellant on the basis of decisions of the National Commission in the cases of United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaya Rajendra Kumar Nanda Vol.1 2004(1) CPJ 25 (NC) and Prabhakar Transporters v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004(1) Judgment Reporter Companies 310 (NC). So far decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur & Ors., 2004(1) CLT 257 (SC) is concerned, it is a judgment on its own facts. In addition to this, so far right of the appellant to recover the amount from owner is concerned we are not saying anything in this behalf. Therefore, no benefit can be obtained by the appellant from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur & Ors. supra. As such this plea is also without substance and is hereby rejected. 8. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.