JUDGMENT: 1. THIS application is at the instance of the appellant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, west Bengal and is directed against the order dated March 22, 2007 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No. S. C. Case No. 203a/06 whereby the learned Commission has dismissed the appeal without any cost and affirmed the order of dismissal of the District Forum in case No. 26/2003. 2. THE short fact leading to filing of the application is that the applicant is the owner of a tanker and this tanker is insured with the respondent and it has been paying premium all along. An accident took place on 24. 02. 1998 and as a result a person named ram Swarup Sharma got injured. He filed a case before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi claiming compensation of rs. 4,29,000/ -. In that case the respondent was impleaded as a party. After final hearing of the said case the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 81,000/- along with interest in favour of the said Ram Swarup Sharma. The complainant was directed to pay the said amount and the insurance company was exonerated from making any payment on the ground that the person who was driving the tanker of the applicant was not holding any valid licence. The applicant was compelled to pay the compensation of Rs. 97,065/. Thereafter it filed the complaint before the Consumer Court, calcutta claiming the said amount from the respondent. But the complaint was rejected by the Consumer Court. The applicant preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, West Bengal. The appeal was also dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the applicant has preferred this application. Having considered the submission of the learned Advocate for the applicant and on going through the materials on record, I find that both the applicant and the respondent were parties in the case for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and upon hearing both the sides the learned Tribunal had passed compensation of Rs. 81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on 22. 08. 2000. In that claim case, the respondent/insurance company took the definite stand that the person who was driving the vehicle on the relevant date of accident on 24. 02. 1998 at 10. 81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on 22. 08. 2000. In that claim case, the respondent/insurance company took the definite stand that the person who was driving the vehicle on the relevant date of accident on 24. 02. 1998 at 10. 30 a. m. had no valid driving licence. Upon taking into consideration of the evidence of both the sides, the learned tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident the driver of the said tanker did not have any driving licence. Against such order, the applicant did not prefer any appeal or revision or review. So that judgment dated 22. 08. 2000 has reached finality and it is binding upon the parties to that claim case. For that reason, the applicant has no way of avoiding that judgment. 3. THE contention of the respondent is that the applicant did not perform his part of the contract relating to the insurance of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was being driven by an unauthorised person and for that reason the accident took place. 4. ACCORDINGLY, the applicant is not entitled to recover any compensation for violation of the terms of insurance. In the given circumstances, the complaint of the applicant before the Consumer Court was rejected upon hearing both the sides and his appeal bearing No. S. C. 203/a/06 was dismissed on contest. The applicant had to pay the sum of Rs. 97,065/- and he has wanted to recover such amount from the respondent. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that according to decisions in I (2001) C. P. J. 516 and IV (2004) C. P. J. 251 any claim based upon insurance policy is related to deficiency in service and so any complaint by the owner of the vehicle before the consumer Forum is maintainable. He has also submitted that the remedy in Consumer Forum is independent and in addition to other remedies and so the complainant is entitled to compensation. It is true that where there is a deficiency in service, a complaint lies before the Forum. This principle is laid down in I (2001)C. P. J. 516. But the decision in IV (2004) C. P. J. 251 refers to facts where the breach of policy is not fundamental in nature. It is true that where there is a deficiency in service, a complaint lies before the Forum. This principle is laid down in I (2001)C. P. J. 516. But the decision in IV (2004) C. P. J. 251 refers to facts where the breach of policy is not fundamental in nature. In the instant application, I find that the offending vehicle was being driven at the relevant time by a person having no licence. So the applicant had committed violation of basic or fundamental rule in driving the vehicle. So I hold that the decision in IV (2004) C. P. J. 251 is not applicable in the instant application. Had the insured complied with the terms of insurance he would have been able to recover the said compensation from the respondent. But for the observation made above that the applicant having violated the basic/fundamental term of insurance by plying the offending tanker by a person not holding any driving licence, the claim of the applicant cannot be entertained at all. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal holding that the same is devoid of merits. I hold that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. 5. ACCORDINGLY, this application is dismissed but without any cost.