ORDER Mr. Justice S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition is directed against an order allowing the appeal of the Complainant and directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,23,500 with interest @ 12% from 25.7.1996 in terms of Surveyor report dated 24.4.1996 with cost of Rs. 2,000. 3. In this matter, a short question, which needs our consideration, is “Whether the Insurance Company could absolve itself from the liability in case the licence was renewed twice but as per reports, no such driving licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Jabalpur initially on 19th July, 1985”? Admittedly, the driving licence of Ashok Kumar was renewed validly twice, thereafter. 4. The State Commission while allowing the appeal took the view that assuming for the sake of argument that initially the driving licence was not genuine but on successive renewal, it could be said that the licence was validly renewed by the Competent Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was not expected of the owner of the tanker to make detailed inquiries as to whether initially the licence was actually issued by the Licensing Authority or not and in that sense, there was no breach of the clause in the contract of insurance and the Insurance Company could not escape liability only on that count. 5. Having heard the parties’ Counsel, we feel that the order passed by the learned State Commission was substantially just and equitable in the aforesaid circumstances. 6. The insurer could avoid liability subject to the condition that the insurer proved that in addition to the fact that the driver did not have the valid driving licence initially and he was aware of the breach of condition, and this breach of the condition of the policy was breach of fundamental condition, which was violated knowingly and wilfully by the insurer himself. Once there was subsequent renewal by the Competent Authority, the insurer could not even imagine that it could be initially fake. In Swaran Singh’s case —National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, I (2004) ACC 1 (SC)=2004 (3) SCC 297, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed its general agreement with the approach of the Bench in the case of United India Insurance Co. In Swaran Singh’s case —National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, I (2004) ACC 1 (SC)=2004 (3) SCC 297, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed its general agreement with the approach of the Bench in the case of United India Insurance Co. v. Lehru and Ors., I (2003) ACC 611 (SC)=JT 2003 (2) SC 595 but pointed out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of the law in terms whereof the insurer was to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising any defence or for the owners to be absolved from any liability whatsoever. 7. In the aforementioned circumstances, the breach could not be said to be wilful breach of the policy and, as such, we feel that the order passed by the learned State Commission allowing the appeal is just and equitable. 8. The compensation has been awarded in terms of the report of Surveyor. 9. As regards interest, it is submitted that the interest @ 12% p.a. is on high side in the facts and circumstances of this matter. We feel that the argument of the learned Counsel on this point is justified and accordingly, we reduce the interest from 12% to 9% p.a. payable on the sum of Rs. 3,23,500 w.e.f. 25th July, 1996 allowing 3 months time from the date of report of the Surveyor. 10. The complainant shall also be entitled to get the cost of Rs. 2,000 as assessed by the learned State Commission. 11. In view of the above terms, the Revision Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Revision Petition disposed of. –