ORDER : R.S. Sharma, President This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.06.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G). (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.60/2014. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant company is having a vehicle bearing registration No.M.H.31-DS-4070. The said vehicle was insured under a contract of insurance under Policy No.45120331120100002153. The said vehicle was insured with the O.P. for the period from 30.07.2012 to 29.07.2013. On 27.11.2012 at about 7.00 A.M. at Bhilwada, District Bhandara a vehicle which was coming from opposite direction dash the vehicle in question due to which the vehicle was damaged The complainant lodged First Information Report in concerned Police Station. The complainant gave intimation regarding the incident to the O.P. After making assessment of the loss in the above incident, the complainant sent claim along with documents to the O.P. The O.P. vide letter dated 04.02.2013 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of the opinion of the Investigator on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. The O.P. did not provide opportunity of hearing to the complainant and without conducting any investigation itself, repudiated the claim of the complainant and thus committed deficiency in service. The Investigator of the O.P. has provided his opinion without applying his mind. The expiry date of the driving licence of the driver was 10.07.2013. The driver has submitted an application on 11.12.2012 for renewal of the licence prior to 7 months of the date of expiry of the licence and the next renewal date is 10.12.2015. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the O.P. on the basis of false report of the Investigator and thus it committed deficiency in service. The complainant was not having knowledge regarding renewal of licence of the driver. The complainant had purchased the vehicle on 28.02.2012. The complainant gave the intimation regarding intimation to the O.P. on 30.07.2013 and sent the vehicle for repairing to Ashok Leyland Company. The estimate for a sum of Rs.4,79,905/- was provided to the complainant. At present the vehicle in question is completely damaged. Thus, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.4,79,905/-. The complainant had purchased the vehicle on 28.02.2012. The complainant gave the intimation regarding intimation to the O.P. on 30.07.2013 and sent the vehicle for repairing to Ashok Leyland Company. The estimate for a sum of Rs.4,79,905/- was provided to the complainant. At present the vehicle in question is completely damaged. Thus, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.4,79,905/-. The O.P. is liable to pay compensation to the complainant because the vehicle in question is insured with the O.P. The complainant sent notice to the O.P. on 21.04.2014 but even then the O.P. did not pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint. 3. The O.P. has filed its written statement before the District Forum and averred that the vehicle bearing registration No.M.H.31-DS-470 was insured with the O.P. for the period from 30.07.2012 to 29.12.2013. The claim of the complainant has been termed as No Claim. The O.P. insured the vehicle bearing registration No. M.H.31-DS-4070 and the insurance policy was provided to the complainant. The complainant will be entitled for getting compensation when he comply the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of the complainant was not having valid and effective driving licence, hence he did not comply the terms and conditions of the policy, in these circumstances, the O.P. is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The O.P. asked the complainant to submit driving licence of the driver, but the complainant filed the complaint on the basis of false facts. The O.P. did commit any deficiency in service. The complainant did not file the copy of the application which was produced by the complainant for renewal of the licence and also did not file documents relating to seizure. The complainant did not incur a sum of Rs.4,79,095/- on repairing of the vehicle in question. The complainant did not intimate regarding the incident to the O.P. The O.P. itself discussed with the complainant and demanded driving licence of the driver, but the complainant did not provide the copy of driving licence of the driver, therefore, the O.P. is not liable to pay any compensation to the O.P. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. The complainant has filed documents. 4. The complainant has filed documents. Document No.1 is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.M.H.31-DS-4070, document No.2 is driving licence of Deepak Lanjewar, document No.3 is Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance - Commercial Vehicle Package Policy, document No.4 is First Information Report, document No.5 is details of known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars, document No.6 is Intimation, document No.7 is Extract of the Driving Licence of Deepak Lanjewar, document No.8 and 9 is Motor Claim Form, document No.10 is letter dated 04.02.2013 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, document No.11 is Estimate given by Ashok Leyland in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.MH-31-DS-4070, document No.12 is acknowledgement, document No.13 is registered notice sent by Narayan Kannoje to the O.P. along with postal receipt, death certificate of Dipak Lanjewar. 5. The O.P. has filed documents, which are Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance - Commercial Vehicle Package Policy and Extract of the Driving Licence of Deepak Lanjewar. 6. Shri Narayan Kannoje, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is erroneous. The learned District Forum did not consider the proviso of Section 15 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The driver of the appellant (complainant) had moved application for renewal of the driving licence, which was pending before the concerned R.T.O. The driver of the appellant (complainant) had already applied for renewal of the driving licence before concerned R.T.O. therefore, Proviso of Section 15(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, is applicable and on the basis of above proviso, it is presumed that the driver of the vehicle in question was having valid and effective driving licence. The O.P. respondent (O.P.) has wrongly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). On 27.11.2012 at about 7.00 A.M. at Bhilwada, District Bhandarda, the insured vehicle bearing registration No.M.H.31-DS-4070 met with an accident and damaged completely. The appellant (complainant) lodged First Information Report before concerned Police Station and also gave intimation regarding the incident to the respondent (O.P.). Thereafter, the appellant (complainant) sent claim form along with relevant documents before the respondent (O.P.), but the respondent (O.P.) on the basis of Investigation Report of the Investigator, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant (complainant), repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant) and thus the respondent (O.P.) committed deficiency in service. Thereafter, the appellant (complainant) sent claim form along with relevant documents before the respondent (O.P.), but the respondent (O.P.) on the basis of Investigation Report of the Investigator, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant (complainant), repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant) and thus the respondent (O.P.) committed deficiency in service. The appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation, as prayed by him in the relief clause of the complaint. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant (complainant) may be allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, be set aside and the reliefs sought by the appellant (complainant) be awarded to him. He placed reliance on National Insurance Company Limited v. Mahadev Rawat & Another, 2010 (2) A.C.C.D. 1185 (All.) decided by Allahabad High Court - Lucknow Bench on 16.02.2010 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Shri S. Gurmeet Singh 2011 (3) C.G.L.J. 21 (CCC) decided by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur vide order dated 20.04.2011. 7. Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P.) has argued that the appellant (complainant) is only entitled for getting compensation when he complies with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, At the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence and he did not comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the instant case, the proviso of Section 15(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not applicable, but the proviso of Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is applicable. According to the appellant (complainant), the driver of the vehicle in question had submitted application before concerned R.T.O. for renewal of driving licence, but the appellant (complainant) did not file copy of the application, which was submitted by him before the competent Authority. The appellant (complainant) did not incur a sum of Rs.4,79,905/- on repairing of the vehicle in question. The appellant (complainant) did not intimate regarding the incident to the respondent (O.P.), therefore, the claim of the appellant (complainant) has rightly been repudiated by the respondent (O.P.). The appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get any relief from the respondent (O.P.). The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal of the appellant (complainant) be dismissed. 8. The appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get any relief from the respondent (O.P.). The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal of the appellant (complainant) be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsels appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum as well as the impugned order. 9. It is not disputed that the appellant (complainant) is owner of vehicle bearing registration No.M.H.31-DS-4070. In the Certificate of Registration [Document No.1, filed by the appellant (complainant)] the maker's name of the vehicle in question is mentioned Ashok Leyland Limited and type of body is mentioned as Goods Carrying Vehicle. The appellant (complainant) has also filed Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance (document No.3). According to the insurance policy, the vehicle in question was insured with the respondent (O.P. for the period from 30/07/2012 to 29/07/2013 and the accident took place on 27.11.2012. It appears that the accident occurred during subsistence of the insurance policy. 10. The appellant (complainant) has filed Certificate of Registration, which is marked as document No.1. From perusal of the above document, it appears that the vehicle in question is "Goods Carrying Vehicle", it means that the vehicle in question is transport vehicle. 11. Now we shall examine whether the driver was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident to drive the vehicle in question ? 12. The appellant (complainant) has filed copy of driving licence (document No.2) and Extract of Driving Licence of driver Deepak Lanjewar (document No.7). 13. We have perused the Extract of Driving Licence of Driver Deepak Lanjewar. According to the appellant (complainant), initially the driving licence was issued in favour of driver Deepak Lanjewar for driving transport vehicle on 09.07.2008 for period of three years. It means that the driving licence was valid for the period till 08.07.2011. Thereafter the driving licence was renewed on 11.12.2012 and it was valid till 10.12.2015. From bare perusal of the extract of the driving licence, it appears that the period of driving licence was expired on 08.07.2011 and thereafter it was renewed on 11.12.2012. The accident took place on 27.11.2012. It appears that at the time of occurrence of the accident, the driving licence was not renewed. 14. From bare perusal of the extract of the driving licence, it appears that the period of driving licence was expired on 08.07.2011 and thereafter it was renewed on 11.12.2012. The accident took place on 27.11.2012. It appears that at the time of occurrence of the accident, the driving licence was not renewed. 14. Sub Section (1) & (4) of Section 15 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 run thus :- "(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from date of its expiry : Provided that in any case where the application for renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal : Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 8, and the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence. (4) Where an application for renewal of a driving licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry the fee payable for such renewal shall be such amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government : Provided that the fee referred to in Sub-section (3) may be accepted by the licensing authority in respect of an application for the renewal of a driving licence made under this sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from applying within the time specified in Sub-section (3) : Provided further that if the application is made more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective the licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 9." 15. The appellant (complainant) did not file copy of the application, which was submitted by the driver of the vehicle in question before the concerned R.T.O. for renewal of his licence. In the instant case the proviso of Section 15(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not applicable, but proviso of Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is applicable. 16. In Ishwar Chandra And Others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others, (2007) 10 SCC 650 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :- "9. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took place 28-4-1995. As on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. 17. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushil Jain, 2015 (2) CPR 263 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :- "5. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the driving licence of Rajesh Jindal who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident had expired as on the date of accident. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant fairly admitted during the course of hearing that the respondent did not apply for its renewal within the grace period of 30 days. In view of this, the driver of the vehicle admittedly did not hold any valid and effective driving licence while driving the vehicle. We have perused the original driving licence produced by the respondent but we did not find any mention of the date of renewal. In view of this admitted position, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Ishwar Chand's case (supra). We have perused the original driving licence produced by the respondent but we did not find any mention of the date of renewal. In view of this admitted position, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Ishwar Chand's case (supra). The cases relied by the counsel for the respondent cannot provide any relief to the respondent in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in which the ratio in the case of Swaran Singh has also been considered but not followed. Both the fora below obviously committed grave error in ignoring the specific provisions of section 15 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act while admitting the case of the respondent and returning their findings in his favour. In respect of the claim of the insured himself, the issue as to whether the driver of the vehicle was disqualified from holding a driving licence or driving is no longer relevant keeping in view the ruling given by the Apex Court in Ishwar Chandra's case. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and must be set aside. Accordingly, we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned orders of the State Commission and the District Forum." 18. In Thomas Mathew v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2006 (2) CPJ 309 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :- "6. In the aforementioned circumstances, the State Commission committed no error in returning the finding that there was no valid licence with the driver to drive the vehicle as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act on 14.5.1996. The State Commission has also considered the provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has rightly concluded that even if benefit of 30 days from 12.4.1996 is given, in case he had applied for renewal of licence, even then on the date of accident, i.e., 14.5.1996, the driver did not have any valid driving licence, thus, falling under the General Exception clause of the policy which mandates the driver to hold an effective and valid driving licence failing which the claim was not to be payable." 19. In M/s. MRH Associates Through its Partner, Mr. Harsh Kumar Handa v. National Insurance Co. In M/s. MRH Associates Through its Partner, Mr. Harsh Kumar Handa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Branch Manager & Anr., 2015 (1) CPR 137 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "If driver of vehicle is not holding a valid and effective licence for driving vehicle in question, it shall be a serious violation of statutory requirement under Motor Vehicles Act as also conditions of insurance policy which would vitiate contract of insurance and as such insurance company would be entitled to repudiate claim." 20. In Mankunwar Sinha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2016(3) CPR 532 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :- "7. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jarnail Singh & Ors. JT 2001 (Supp. 2) SC 218, the driving licence of the driver, who drove the vehicle had expired on 16.05.94. The vehicle met with an accident on 20.10.94 and the driving licence was renewed only with effect from 28.10.96. It was held that the proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 15 became applicable to the case and since the driver had no effective licence to drive the vehicle on the date of the accident, the policy condition was violated and the insurance company was not liable to pay any amount to the insured. The aforesaid decision was quoted and applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Aggarwal, AIR 2009 SC 2987 . In Suresh Chandra Aggarwal (supra), the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective licence at the time it met with an accident since the said licence had already expired on 25.10.91, whereas the accident took place on 29.02.92. The policy condition applicable in that case required that the person entitled to drive the vehicle should hold or should have held a driving licence and should not be disqualified from holding an effective driving licence. It was noted that though the driving licence had expired on 25.10.91, 4 months prior to the accident it was got renewed only with effect from 23.03.1992 and the driver had not applied for renewal of the licence within 30 days of its expiry. It was noted that though the driving licence had expired on 25.10.91, 4 months prior to the accident it was got renewed only with effect from 23.03.1992 and the driver had not applied for renewal of the licence within 30 days of its expiry. Referring to the proviso of section 15 sub-section (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was held that in such a case, the licence could be renewed only from the date of its renewal and in the interregnum period between expiry of the licence and the date of its renewal, there was no effective licence in existence. The decision of this Commission holding the Insurance Company liable was, therefore, set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court." 21. In the instant case, Deepak Lanjewar, who was driving the vehicle bearing registration No.M.H.-31-DS-4070 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The vehicle in question was being driven by the driver Deepak Lanjewar, in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation, even on nonstandard basis from the respondent (O.P.). The appellant (complainant) has not filed copy of the application submitted by the driver before the competent authority for renewal of his driving licence. The appellant (complainant) has not been able to prove that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question has applied before the competent authority for renewal of his licence. The judgments cited by the appellant (complainant) are not helpful to him. 22. The finding recorded by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission. 23. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.