ORDER : (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.02.2011 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 13 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – insurance company to pay sum of Rs. 57,216/- to the respondent – complainant towards repair charges of the vehicle together with Rs. 2,000/- towards special damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses, in all, Rs. 60,216/- within a period of one month from the date of the order, failing which the respondent – complainant was also held entitled to interest @5% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that in the year 2007, the complainant had purchased a car (Maruti Alto 800 LX) bearing registration No. UK09-TA-0015. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party – National Insurance Company Limited for the period from 31.10.2008 to 30.10.2009 at an IDV of Rs. 2,21,000/-. It was alleged that on 26.12.2008 (wrongly mentioned as 28.12.2008 in the consumer complaint), the insured vehicle was being driven by its driver Sh. Bijendra Prasad, who was having the driving experience of 14-15 years and the same met with an accident at Chamund, New Tehri at 7:00 p.m. On receipt of the intimation of the accident of the insured vehicle, the insurance company deputed spot surveyor on 29.12.2008, who after conducting the spot survey, submitted his report to the insurance company. Thereafter, the insurance company appointed surveyor for assessment of the loss. The vehicle was toed from the site of the accident to Rohan Motors Limited, Dehradun for repairs, where the vehicle was repaired and sum of Rs. 48,014/- was spent by the complainant in the repair of the vehicle. After repair of the vehicle, the complainant requested the insurance company for payment of the claim amount, but the same was not paid. The complainant sent a notice to the insurance company through his Advocate. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver. The complainant sent a notice to the insurance company through his Advocate. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver, so as to authorize him to drive the vehicle on hill roads; that as per the terms and conditions of the permit granted to the complainant, he was obliged to engage a driver having minimum experience of five years, which the driver driving the vehicle at the relevant time of the accident, did not possess; that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 34,620/-; that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated per letter dated 02.06.2009 on the ground that there was on hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver on the date of the accident 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 14.02.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. Rule 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 reads as under: “193. Endorsement of certain licences for hill roads – No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a registering authority with a permission to drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such registering authority or in the case of a public service vehicle hired by tourists, by the registering authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangements on the point have been agreed upon.” 7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that at the time of the accident on 26.12.2008, the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Bijendra Prasad Thapliyal S/o Sh. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that at the time of the accident on 26.12.2008, the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Bijendra Prasad Thapliyal S/o Sh. S.C. Thapliyal, who was having driving licence No. 1154/DDN/003 and by way of the said driving licence, the driver was authorized to drive LMV and HGV. The said driving licence was endorsed for hill routes on 30.03.2009. The above fact is evident from the particulars of driving licence obtained by the insurance company from the Licensing Authority on Form No. 54 (Paper No. 39). The surveyor Sh. Sanjeev Sharma in his survey report dated 19.02.2009 (Paper Nos. 40 to 45) has mentioned that the above driving licence was not endorsed for hill routes on the date of the accident. As is stated above, the accident took place on 26.12.2008, on which date, there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver to authorize him to drive the vehicle on hill roads. 8. Thus, the fact remains that there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The accident in question took place on 26.12.2008 at Chamund, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal. Hence, there is no dispute that the accident in question took place in hilly area. Therefore, the driver was obliged to have hill endorsement in his driving licence so as to authorize him to drive the vehicle on hill roads, which he did not possess. 9. In view of above quoted Rule of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, it was incumbent upon the driver to have hill endorsement in his driving licence, which he did not have. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Rajinder Singh Negi Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited; IV (2008) CPJ 250 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the “hill road endorsement” on driving licence is not a mere formality, which can be brushed aside in a State, which is generally hilly. In the said case, there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver at the time of the accident. In the said case, there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver at the time of the accident. It was held that the driving licence was not in conformity with the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant Motor Vehicle Rules and the absence of hill endorsement in the driving licence, would render the driving licence invalid and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company further cited a decision of this Commission in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sh. Budhi Singh Pharswan; 2008 UAD 217 . In the said case, the claim was repudiated on the ground that there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver and the repudiation of the claim on the said ground was held to be justified. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company also cited another decision of this Commission in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Devendra Narayan Dubey; III (2008) CPJ 302. In the said case, the driving licence of the driver was not endorsed for hill roads. It was held that the endorsement for driving vehicle on hill roads was necessary and the repudiation of the claim was held to be justified. 10. 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 legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is fit to be allowed. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 14.02.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 13 of 2009 is dismissed. No order as to costs.