ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 47 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 2,44,833/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle No. UK07-TA-0053 (Tata Indica), which was insured with the appellant – ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 08.11.2007 to 07.11.2008 at an IDV of Rs. 3,26,445/-. During the validity of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 17.08.2008 at 4:00 p.m. at Shivpuri, Rishikesh, District Dehradun and fell in a river. The FIR of the accident was lodged with the P.S. Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal on 17.08.2008. The intimation of the accident was also given to the insurance company. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company, which was repudiated by the insurance company that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and he was not having an experience of five years. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the driver was not having an experience of five years and, as such, the claim was not payable and was rightly repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 08.04.2010 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 08.04.2010 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the date of the accident of the insured vehicle, i.e., 17.08.2008, the driver of the vehicle did not possess an experience of five years in driving such type of vehicles. 7. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Kuldev Singh Kaintura, the husband of the complainant. He was issued driving licence to drive scooter and car on 08.08.2000, which was valid upto 15.06.2006, as is evident from the copy of the driving licence on record (Paper No. 31). Sh. Kuldev Singh Kaintura was, however, made authorised to drive non-transport vehicle for the period from 20.02.2006 to 15.06.2016, whereby he was authorised to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) and motorcycle with gear (non-transport). Sh. Kuldev Singh Kaintura was further made authorised to drive transport vehicle for the period from 10.07.2007 to 09.07.2010 by the RTO, Dehradun. The above fact is evident from the copy of his another driving licence on record (Paper No. 32). Thus, the driver was made authorised to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) w.e.f. 20.02.2006. The accident in question took place on 17.08.2008, thus, on the date of the accident, the driver did not possess an experience of five years in driving such type of vehicles and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was a condition stipulated in the permit issued in favour of the complainant that the driver must have five years driving experience, which in view of the above position, Sh. Kuldev Singh Kaintura, the driver driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not have. Therefore, the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and the view to the contrary, taken by the District Forum can not be said to be justified and can not be confirmed. 8. Kuldev Singh Kaintura, the driver driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not have. Therefore, the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and the view to the contrary, taken by the District Forum can not be said to be justified and can not be confirmed. 8. The District Forum has taken the view that since the accident took place on account of land sliding and, as such, the claim is to be settled on non-standard basis, which in view of the various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission and also of this Commission, can not be said to be justified in view of the fact that it is well proved in the present case that on the date of the accident, the vehicle did not possess five years experience, which was a condition precedent in the permit issued in favour of the complainant. 9. This Commission in its decision dated 14.09.2009 passed in First Appeal No. 142 of 2007; The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Govind Chauhan, has held that since the driver was not having minimum five years experience to drive passenger carrying commercial vehicle, which was a condition of the permit and, as such, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. This Commission in its another decision dated 22.06.2011 rendered in First Appeal No. 69 of 2010; The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee, has held that the repudiation of the claim by the insurer on the ground that the driver was not having a driving licence of five years old or more, as was specified under the terms of the road permit, was justified and the appeal of the insurer was allowed and the order made by the District Forum allowing the consumer complaint, was set aside. 10. On behalf of the respondent – complainant, reliance was placed on the Notification dated 31.08.2010 issued by Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand (Paper No. 30), wherein the Transport Authority has waived off the condition that the driver should have driving licence of five years old or more. But this Notification does not provide any help to the complainant. 10. On behalf of the respondent – complainant, reliance was placed on the Notification dated 31.08.2010 issued by Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand (Paper No. 30), wherein the Transport Authority has waived off the condition that the driver should have driving licence of five years old or more. But this Notification does not provide any help to the complainant. The reason being that in the instant case, as is stated above, the accident took place on 17.08.2008 and the Notification dated 31.08.2010 can not be made applicable from retrospective effect and can not take away the specific condition provided in the permit that the complainant should engage a driver having driving licence of five years old or more. 11. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which can not be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the appeal is fit to be allowed. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 08.04.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 47 of 2009 is dismissed. No order as to costs.