ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President) Insurance company challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the District Forum, Nainital, allowing consumer complaint No. 127 of 2005 with costs of Rs. 1,500/- and further directing the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 96,652/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim, i.e., 05.08.2004 till payment, by way of indemnification of the loss occasioned to the complainant due to accident of his insured heavy goods vehicle No. UP01/5772 on 18.02.2004 in a hill route of Kumaon region of Uttarakhand. 2. Complainant’s claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was not endorsed for heavy goods vehicle on hill routes of Kumaon region. As stated above, accident occurred on 18.02.2004, whereas admittedly the said driver had endorsement of heavy goods vehicle in hill routes on his driving licence on 30.04.2004. The District Forum rejected the contention of the insurance company, by observing that it was not a gross violation of the contract of insurance, in view of the fact that the driver had his driving licence endorsed for hill routes since 08.02.1988 in regard to light motor vehicles and on that premise, accepted the complainant’s allegation that the insurance company made deficiency in service in repudiating the claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 96,652/-, inspite of the fact that the independent surveyor assessed loss of Rs. 47,457.75/-. The District Forum did not record any reason to avoid the assessment of the loss made by independent surveyor. 3. Learned counsel for the insurance company persuasively argued that it being admittedly a case of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by reason of the driver of the vehicle not authorized to drive the heavy goods vehicle at the time of the accident, the District Forum fell in error in making the observation that there being no substantial breach of contract of insurance, the insurance company can not avoid its liability to pay compensation to the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant urged that as is evident from the report of the surveyor, the accident occurred as a result of collapse of left side edge of the road and, as such, there was no nexus between the absence of hill endorsement of heavy goods vehicle in the driving licence of the driver and the cause of accident and, therefore, the District Forum was justified in allowing the complaint for the reason stated above and particularly when the driver was duly authorized to drive light motor vehicle on hill routes of Kumaon region since 08.02.1988 and was, thus, had an experience of 16 years of driving of vehicle in the hills. 4. Having carefully considered the respective submissions, we see merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company, we are of the considered view that the District Forum fell in error in recording a finding in favour of the complainant and awarding the compensation to the complainant by the order impugned. 5. The reasons for the above decision are that it is not in dispute that in view of the provisions of Rule 193 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, also applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, the driver of the accidental vehicle was not authorized to drive heavy goods vehicle on the hill routes of the State at the time of the accident and there can be no gain saying that the breach tantamount to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. We are supported in our view by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal I (2008) CJP 1 (SC) = 2008 CTJ 1 (SC) (CP) and wherein it had been stressed that if the licence issued to a driver is to ply only a light motor vehicle and there is no endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, the insurance company can not be saddled with a liability to pay compensation, in case the transport vehicle he was driving, was involved in an accident. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the same principle in Sardari and others Vs. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the same principle in Sardari and others Vs. Sushil Kumar and others II (2008) CPJ 21 (SC) and wherein it had been stressed that insurer can avoid its liability on ground of violation of conditions of the contract of insurance and that the owner of the vehicle has statutory liability to see that driver holds valid licence. The driver of the vehicle, in the present case, was not having valid licence and in view of the facts of the case, the insurance company was well within its legal rights to deny the claim preferred by the complainant. In such type of cases, we have taken a similar view and for reference, we may cite the decision in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Devendra Narayan Dubey III (2008) CPJU 302, pressed into service by the learned counsel for the insurance company. 6. In so far as the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant was concerned, we may point out that hill endorsement on driving licence is made on compliance of certain norms and after having a test by the prescribed officer as to whether or not the driver is competent to drive a particular type of vehicle on hill route, so as to make compliance of Rule 193 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. In the absence of hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver of the accidental vehicle, we have to accept that the driver has had no competence to drive heavy goods transport vehicle on hill route and for that reason, he caused the left side edge of the road to collapse by steering the accidental vehicle more towards left side and, thus, caused the accident. There was, thus, also nexus between the absence of hill endorsement on the driving licence and the cause of the accident and, therefore, we would not subscribe to the contrary argument put forward by the learned counsel for the complainant. For that reason, the decision in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gaj Pal Singh Rawat; III (2009) CPJ 254 (NC), pressed into service by the learned counsel for the complainant, shall have no bearing on the facts of the case, so as to help the cause of the complainant. 7. For that reason, the decision in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gaj Pal Singh Rawat; III (2009) CPJ 254 (NC), pressed into service by the learned counsel for the complainant, shall have no bearing on the facts of the case, so as to help the cause of the complainant. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the complainant’s claim and the District Forum fell in error in accepting the complaint and awarding compensation in the case, by observing that the insurance company made deficiency in service in repudiating the claim. The appeal, thus, succeed and is to be allowed accordingly. 8. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 27.10.2006 of the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 127 of 2005 is dismissed. No order as to costs.