ORDER R.K. Batta, Presiding Member—The complainant had insured Maruti car from 6.5 2003 to 5.5.2004 Fora sum of Rs.1,93,166. On 3.12.2003 driver of the complainant took the vehicle to Tilwara and at about 4.30 p.m. a stone fell on the car as a result of which driver lost control due to which vehicle fell down in Mandakini river. FIR was lodged with the police and claim was lodged with the Insurance Company on the next day. The claim was not settled and the complainant approached District Consumer Forum. 2. The Insurance Company filed written statement containing evasive denials but it was nowhere stated in the written statement that the vehicle was not insured or that it did not meet with an accident or the driver was not holding any valid driving licence. It was during the course of arguments before the District Forum that plea relating to validity of driving licence of the driver was raised. 3. The District Forum allowed the claim and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,93,166 with 11% p.a. interest thereon from 3.12.2002 and 10.75% p.a. interest from 1.3.2004. The Insurance Company was further directed to pay Rs.3,000 as expenditure incurred by the complainant to go to Dehradun Rs.500 for telephone expenditure and Rs.3,000 for mental and physical agony. This order was challenged before the State Commission. 4. The State Commission, after placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors.1 and on the case of Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.2 held that there was no pleading of the opposite party to the effect that accident took place due to any fault of the driver and that neither the fault of driver is alleged nor proved. Therefore, according to the State Commission, the issue whether the driver was holding a valid driving licence or not was not material, inasmuch as he was driving the vehicle since 1997. The admitted position was that the driver had a driving licence which had expired on 22.4.2003 but was not renewed within 30 days; the accident took place on 3.12.2003 and the driving licence was renewed on 22.7.2004. The admitted position was that the driver had a driving licence which had expired on 22.4.2003 but was not renewed within 30 days; the accident took place on 3.12.2003 and the driving licence was renewed on 22.7.2004. Taking all these factors into consideration the State Commission came to the conclusion that since the accident had no nexus with the licence of the driver, inasmuch as heavy stone fell on vehicle due to which balance was lost and accident occurred, the claim should be allowed on non-standard basis. Accordingly, the State Commission reduced the compensation by 25% and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,44,750. The Insurance Company was directed to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 9% p.a. from 15.7.2004 i.e. from the date of complaint till the date of actual payment. Besides, cost of litigation and other expenses were limited to Rs.1,000. This order is subject matter of challenge in revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before us that since the driver did not have any driving licence on the date of accident, the Fora below were not justified in granting compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent urged that stone had fallen from the hill on the vehicle as a result of which the vehicle had fallen in the river and that no fault can be attributed to the driver or driving of the vehicle in the episode leading to fall of the vehicle in the river. He therefore submitted that the revision is liable to be rejected. 6. Admittedly, the cause of accident was sudden fall of stones, one of which hit the vehicle in question as a result of which the vehicle fell into the river. The report of the investigator appointed by the Insurance Company also shows that suddenly 5-6 big stones rolled down from the mountains on to the road and to avoid the falling stones the vehicle was taken to the unmetalled part of the road but suddenly due to the sinking of the gravel below the car fell into the gorge and rolled into the river. Thus, it is clear that accident in question had not taken place on account of any fault of driving on the part of the driver. Thus, it is clear that accident in question had not taken place on account of any fault of driving on the part of the driver. The findings of the State Commission as also the District Forum are not only based on material on record but are well founded. The Apex Court in the case of Jitender Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) while dealing with a case where motor vehicle while running had caught fire due to mechanical fault and got burnt held that the driver not being responsible in anyway for the accident, the insurer was wrong in repudiating the claim for insurance. The Insurance Company had repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. In that case District Consumer Forum had allowed the claim but it was reversed by State Commission and revision was dismissed. In this connection, the Apex Court made the following observation: “We have heard learned counsel for the respondents who has supported the orders of the State Commission as well as that of the National Commission. So far as the facts of this case are concerned, there is hardly any dispute, therefore, we can safely proceed on the basis that the vehicle in question was damaged due to a mechanical fault and no fault of the driver. For the purpose of argument, we may also proceed on the basis that the driver of the car did not have a valid driving license. Question then is: can the Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the company, solely on the ground the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the accident did not hold a valid license? Answer to this question, in our opinion, should be in the negative. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the Insurance Company in repudiating a claim where driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. Answer to this question, in our opinion, should be in the negative. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the Insurance Company in repudiating a claim where driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim wherein the vehicle in question is damaged due to an accident to which driver of the vehicle who does not hold a valid driving license is responsible in any manner. It does not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to acts to which the driver has not, in any manner, contributed i.e. damages incurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver.” (emphasis supplied) 7. We notice that in the impugned order National Commission has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company (supra) which, in our opinion, has no bearing on this aspect of the case in hand. This Court in the said case held that the fake driving license when renewed genuinely, does not acquire the validity of a genuine license. There can be no dispute on this proposition of law. But then the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company (supra) does not go to the extent of laying down a law which empowers the Insurance Company to repudiate any and every claim of the insured (appellant) merely because he had engaged a driver who did not have a valid license. In the instant case, it is the case of the parties that fire in question which caused damage to the vehicle occurred due to mechanical failure and not due to any fault or act, or omission of the driver. Therefore, in our considered opinion Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim of the appellant. In the instant case, it is the case of the parties that fire in question which caused damage to the vehicle occurred due to mechanical failure and not due to any fault or act, or omission of the driver. Therefore, in our considered opinion Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim of the appellant. The Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh (supra) has made following observations in para 89 which are relevant in the context: “….In each case, on evidence led before the claims tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening cause like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.” 8. Both these decisions have been referred by the Apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kasum Rai and Ors.3 Taking all the facts into consideration, the State Commission has directed payment on the basis of non-standard basis and has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from 15.7.2004, that is to say, the date of the complaint till actual payment, and besides that consolidated sum of Rs.1,000 as cost of litigation and other expenses was ordered to be paid. We do not find act infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission or any reason or justification to interfere with the said order since we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error. In view of this, the revision is hereby dismissed. In the fact and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Revision petition dismissed. *******