ORDER (Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President) This is insurer’s appeal against the order dated 09.06.2006 passed by the District Froum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 37 of 2005. 2. Complainant’s insured light motor vehicle (transport), registration No. UA07C/9508 met with an accident on 04.01.2004 near Shaknidhar, while it was on its way to Joshimath from Rishikesh for transporting goods. Vehicle was badly damaged. Claim preferred with the insurer was repudiated on the ground that the driver Sh. Vijay Pal was not authorized to drive the vehicle in hills and, as such, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. 3. The District Forum considered the import of Rule 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, which provides specific endorsement for driving public service vehicle in hill road and finding that there being no such endorsement in the licence of the driver, went on to partly allow the consumer complaint for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,61,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. on non-standard basis by making deduction of 20% from the loss assessed at Rs. 3,27,000/-. The District Forum also awarded Rs. 5,000/- as damages and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. 4. On the contentions raised, the only question, which arise for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the insurer was justified in repudiating the claim on account of absence of specific endorsement for driving the public service vehicle on hill roads in the driving licence of Sh. Vijay Pal and the District Forum fell in error in awarding compensation, even on non-standard basis?” 5. Rule 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, reads as under: “193, Endorsement of certain licences for hill roads – No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a registering authority with a permission to drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such registering authority or in the case of a public service vehicle hired by tourists, by the registering authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangements on the point have been agreed upon.” 6. It is settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and rules framed thereunder, lay down certain restriction on the use of the vehicles, the purpose for which they are used, the driver who could ply the vehicles as well as the State within which they are plied. If the restrictions are defied, they under the peculiar circumstances, result in the definite breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and repudiation of the claim by the insurance company cannot be taken to be a case of deficiency in service. In this background, the learned counsel for the insurer persuasively argued that in the absence of the endorsement, as is envisaged by Rule 193 of the above Rules, 1998, the driver of the subject vehicle was not authorised to drive the vehicle on hill roads and specifically at Shaknidhar, the place where the subject vehicle met with an accident on 04.01.2004 and, therefore, the repudiation of the complainant’s claim was legally justified. Learned counsel also submitted that in the face of the facts of the case, the claim could not have also been settled on non-standard basis and the District Forum incorrectly held that the insurer made deficiency in service in repudiating the claim. This Commission has accepted the similar arguments advanced in recently decided cases and has held that the insurer made no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim on the ground that the driver’s licence had no endorsement to drive the public service vehicle or goods vehicle in the hills and, thus, reference may be made to the orders dated 27.11.2007 in First Appeal No. 268/2005; The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Budhi Singh Pharswan, dated 12.02.2008 in First Appeal No. 248/2006; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Devendra Narayan Dubey and dated 05.03.2008 in First Appeal No. 183/2006; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Anil Singh Rawat. 7. Further, it need to be stated that in the earlier judgments, reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut; III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC), which laid down that in own damage cases, the insurer is justified to repudiate the claim if unauthorized person was found driving the transport vehicle at the time of the accident. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut; III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC), which laid down that in own damage cases, the insurer is justified to repudiate the claim if unauthorized person was found driving the transport vehicle at the time of the accident. Similar pronouncement was later on made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal; I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) and more lately in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Raj; I (2008) CPJ 33 (SC) and in which case, the decision of the earlier decided case of Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) has been followed. 8. In the face of the facts of the case and the settled legal principle, we do not think that the compensation on non-standard basis could have legally been awarded and, therefore, the decision of this Commission dated 15.06.2004 in Appeal No. 01/2004; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijaya Devi; III (2004) CPJ 559, pressed into service on behalf of the complainant – respondent, cannot be taken to help the cause of the complainant. Learned counsel also referred to office memorandum of the Transport Commissioner, Uttaranchal, that for Chardham Yatra, endorsement for hill driving on the driving licence will not be necessary. The order provide some temporary respite to the religious tourists so that their inflow may not be restricted, but it cannot be taken to absolve the drivers plying transport or public service vehicles regularly in the hills by way of their profession. It is not the case of the complainant that the subject vehicle was on “Chardham Yatra” and, therefore, the office memorandum of the Transport Commissioner, Uttaranchal can also be of no help to the cause of the complainant. 9. In view of above, we are convinced that the insurer was fully justified in repudiating the claim and, as such, made no deficiency in service and that the District Forum incorrectly held otherwise to award compensation to the complainant. The point under consideration is answered accordingly. The complaint, in fact, was liable to be dismissed. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal succeed and is to be allowed accordingly. 11. Appeal is allowed. Order dated 09.06.2006 of the District Forum is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 37 of 2005 is dismissed. No order as to cost.