JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, C.J. 1. This appeal is filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the award made by J & K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, dated 7.2.2014 in Complaint No. 74 of 2012. Claim petition was filed before the State Commission by the respondent herein contending that in order to earn his livelihood he purchased a vehicle (Tavera) bearing registration No. JK 03-B 8751 which was duly insured with the appellant vide policy No. 421002/31/11/6300001668 and the policy was in currency from 2.6.2011 to 1.6.2012. During the subsistence of the insurance the said vehicle met with an accident on 20.2.2012 while moving from Srinagar to Anantnag on Zalmullah National Highway as the driver lost the control of the vehicle and the vehicle collided with a tree and the vehicle got completely damaged. F.I.R. was registered bearing No. 45 of 2012 on the same day on the file of Bijbehara Police Station. The factum of the accident was immediately brought to the notice of the appellant insurance company. On receiving the claim made by the respondent, the appellant insurance company deputed a surveyor to verify the loss. The surveyor visited the spot and inspected the vehicle. No compensation having been paid the respondent was compelled to approach the State Commission for claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 towards the loss suffered to the vehicle along with 18 per cent interest from the date of loss and Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant due to deficiency of service on the part of the appellant insurance company. Rs. 1,00,000 for litigation charges was also claimed. The Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation official, Srinagar, after checking the vehicle on 22.2.2012 certified that the vehicle was mechanically fit, i.e., the brakes, steering and horn are in working order but the body, front screen glass and back glass are broken due to the accident. 2. The said claim petition was opposed by the appellant insurance company by contending that the claim of the respondent was settled on 23.2.2012 when the payment of Rs. 4,000 was received by the complainant in full and final settlement through cheque No. 37994515 after executing the discharge voucher and the said fact was suppressed in the complaint by the respondent. The complainant also produced the estimate for repairs amounting to Rs. 4,000 was received by the complainant in full and final settlement through cheque No. 37994515 after executing the discharge voucher and the said fact was suppressed in the complaint by the respondent. The complainant also produced the estimate for repairs amounting to Rs. 32,600 issued by Sumji Automobiles, Anantnag and submitted a claim for the said amount. The said amount was considered by the surveyor deputed by the appellant insurance company and while making the assessment the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 4,000. It was contended that the vehicle in question had incurred minor damage. Claim raised by the complainant was approved for payment on 14.2.2012 and thereafter the amount of Rs. 4,000 was paid on 23.2.2012. 3. The State Commission, after noticing the licence, permit, inspection certificate, copy of the F.I.R. as well as the insurance policy and the surveyor's report which quantified the damages at Rs. 1,76,451.65, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,76,000 along with Rs. 14,000 as compensation for inconvenience and cost of litigation, bringing the total liability of Rs. 1,90,000, which was directed to be paid to the respondent or deposited in the Commission within 4 weeks. The objection of the appellant insurance company is that on the relevant date the driver of the vehicle had licence to drive commercial vehicle whereas the vehicle in question was light vehicle (taxi), was overruled by the State Commission by holding that the vehicle in question, in any case, was lighter than the one the driver was authorised to drive and as such rigour of this procedural stipulation could not apply to the matter to the point as the genuine claim cannot be denied on hyper-technical ground. 4. The said award is challenged in this appeal by contending that though surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 1,76,451.65 subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the same loss could not be settled as the claimant failed to submit the requisite documents to the appellant insurance company. It was found that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Gulzar Ahmad Dar was holding the driving licence to drive LMV, MGV, HGV (C to E) HTV goods only and it was renewed w.e.f. 16.2.2010 to 15.2.2013. It was found that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Gulzar Ahmad Dar was holding the driving licence to drive LMV, MGV, HGV (C to E) HTV goods only and it was renewed w.e.f. 16.2.2010 to 15.2.2013. As the vehicle in question was meant for carrying passengers, the driver was not authorised to drive the passenger service vehicle (taxi) on the date of accident as there was no PSV endorsement on his driving licence. 5. Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, stressed the said point, namely, the driver was not having a valid driving licence to drive the passenger vehicle and he having been in possession of only LMV goods licence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation for the damaged vehicle. Learned counsel also cited certain decisions in support of his contention. 6. Mr. Tufail Ahmad Qadri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the vehicle in question was insured and the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of accident was having a valid driving licence, the vehicle was not having any mechanical defect as certified, the current insurance premium was also paid and all these facts have not been disputed by the insurance company and in fact in the reply filed before the State Commission, a meagre amount paid by the insurance company is admitted which is in fact admission of the liability of the insurance company and even in the grounds of appeal it is admitted that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the vehicle at Rs. 1,76,451.65, therefore, the State Commission was justified in awarding a total sum of Rs. 1,90,000, as stated supra. The learned counsel also submitted that even if the driver was having only LMV goods licence to drive the vehicle, the vehicle driven by him being lighter (taxi) than the goods vehicle, the insurance company cannot avoid the liability and the said issue is considered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. 8. Facts that vehicle in question, namely, Tavera bearing registration No. JK 03-B 8751 met with an accident on 20.3.2012 which was insured with the appellant insurance company and the surveyor sent by the appellant insurance company assessed the loss at Rs. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. 8. Facts that vehicle in question, namely, Tavera bearing registration No. JK 03-B 8751 met with an accident on 20.3.2012 which was insured with the appellant insurance company and the surveyor sent by the appellant insurance company assessed the loss at Rs. 1,76,451.65, are not in dispute. It is admitted by the appellant insurance company in its objections before the State Commission that a sum of Rs. 4,000 was paid to the respondent through cheque No. 37994515. The payment of said amount reveals the admission of liability on the part of the appellant to pay compensation. The driving licence possessed by driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not put as an issue in objections filed before the State Commission. 9. It is the case of the appellant that the licence of the driver, namely, Gulzar Ahmad Dar was directed to be produced before the State Commission and on perusal of the said driving licence it was established that driver was having a driving licence to drive LMV, MGV, HGV (C to E) HTV goods and it was also renewed w.e.f. 16.2.2010 to 15.2.2013. The insured vehicle was Tavera which is a passenger like motor vehicle (taxi). It is not the case of the appellant that the driver was not diligent in driving the vehicle, thus it is manifest that the vehicle was a light motor vehicle and the person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident was having a light motor vehicle licence. 10. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC). In the said judgment it is held that in order to attract the breach of insurance policy, occurring in section 96(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the insurance company has to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement of violation of a promise. The infringement on the part of the insured must be shown to be wilful and if the insured had taken all the precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question, the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability under sub-section (1) of section 96 of the Act. The infringement on the part of the insured must be shown to be wilful and if the insured had taken all the precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question, the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability under sub-section (1) of section 96 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on the earlier judgment in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 319 (SC), wherein the appellant was the owner of the truck weighing less than the maximum limit prescribed in section 2(21) of the Act. The said respondent-insurer for a certain amount and for a certain period (sic) within the period of insurance the truck met with an accident and got completely damaged. The claim was rejected by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stating that the truck was a goods carriage or a transport carriage and that the driver of the truck who was holding a driving licence to drive light motor vehicles only, was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the said judgment by taking note of the fact that the vehicle was weighing 5,920 kilograms and the driver had the licence to drive a light motor vehicle. In case of light motor vehicle, which is a non-transport vehicle, there was no statutory requirement to have a specific authorisation on the licence of the driver under Form 6 under the rules. Thus the driver was holding an effective driving licence on the date of the accident to drive a light motor vehicle. 11. In the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. In the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 ACJ 721 (SC), it was held that light motor vehicle covers both the light passenger vehicle and light goods vehicle. The driver who had the valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. In the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 ACJ 721 (SC), it was held that light motor vehicle covers both the light passenger vehicle and light goods vehicle. The driver who had the valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle and the motor vehicle in question by which the accident took place was a light motor vehicle and merely because the driver did not get the endorsement on his driving licence, the insurance company cannot deny its liability to pay compensation. 12. Applying the said judgments to the facts of this case, the State Commission was fully justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,90,000 and the same was based on the report of the surveyor as the quantum of compensation awarded has also not been questioned by the insurance company in this appeal. In fine, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. No costs.