JUDGMENT : Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. The present appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the J & K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Commission') dated 23.07.2013 whereby the respondent's complaint No. 03/2011 has been allowed. Consequent thereto, an award for Rs. 1.71 lacs as assessed by the surveyor of the Insurance Company (the appellant herein) was passed in the complainant's favour. Furthermore, a sum of Rs. 44,000/- as compensation for loss of earning and profit during the intervening years and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by way of litigation charges was also awarded resulting in a total amount of Rs. 2.20 lacs. 2. When the appellant filed the present appeal, it was required to deposit 25% of the awarded amount before the said Commission which it has done. 3. The facts are that the complainant's vehicle was being driven by the complainant's driver Mohammad Amin Denthoo from Srinagar to Ladakh. The vehicle was a truck being registration No. JK01G-4223. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident at Khulsi Chowk on 09.07.2008. The loss to the tune of Rs. 4.5 lacs was claimed by the respondent claimant which was turned down by the appellant (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) on the ground that at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle did not have any endorsement in his driving license authorizing him to carry hazardous substances. 4. The said Commission heard the parties and passed the impugned order. The relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:- "2. We have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. As it is, existence of a valid insurance cover to damaged vehicle is admitted as also the accident in which the loss was suffered by the vehicle. Only objection taken is that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle was not having endorsement on his licence which disabled him to drive the vehicle carrying gas cylinders categorized as hazardous goods, which on appraisal does not appear to be sound enough to hold water for the simple reason that as per details given and admitted, the accident, the way it happened did not happen due to anything attributable to mishandling of gas cylinders those were carried in the vehicle. That the vehicle was being driven in any manner not conducive to safe carriage of the cylinders is not at all alleged. That the vehicle was being driven in any manner not conducive to safe carriage of the cylinders is not at all alleged. In these circumstances, lack of requisite endorsement on driver's licence pales into insignificance, it being an irregularity in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, notwithstanding. Obviously, an endorsement on licence, authorizing the driver to carry hazardous goods in the vehicle signifies a particular level of proficiency on part of driver to handle the cylinders and instantly mishandling of gas cylinders is neither pleaded not proved as the cause of accident even remotely. Admittedly, the accident has occurred due to collision with some road block. 3. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and an award for Rs. 1.71 lac as assessed by surveyor of the company is passed in complaint's favour which he was entitled to in 2008 at the time of loss and hence together with Rs. 44,000/- as compensation for loss of earning and profit during intervening years and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation charges, bringing total liability of respondent insurance company to Rs. 2.20 lacs, which be paid to complainant or deposited in this Commission within four weeks from now. Matter stands accordingly disposed of. Office to follow up." 5. From the above, it is evident that the said Commission allowed the claim only on the ground that the gas cylinders which were being transported in the said vehicle did not in any manner contribute to the accident. Thus, the said Commission allowed the claim on the understanding that as the gas cylinders which it regarded as hazardous goods did not contribute to the accident having occurred, there was no question on the part of the insurance company to have denied the claim. 6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company drew our attention to a decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700 : ( AIR 2007 SC 1563 ), wherein the Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 : (AIR 2004 SC 1513) had no application to 'own damage' cases and that the said decision had application only to cases involving third party risks. 7. The present case is one where there is no third party risk and is clearly a case relating to own damage. 7. The present case is one where there is no third party risk and is clearly a case relating to own damage. The logic also appears to be clear that in cases covering third party risks, in the first instance, the insurance company is to compensate the third party and thereafter would be at liberty to recover the same from the insured. Whereas in the case of own damage cases, the relationship between the Insurance Company and the insurer is strictly governed by the contract between the two i.e., the insurance policy. Insofar as the third party cases are concerned, the third party not being a party to the contract between the insurer and the insured, is required to be dealt with differently. That is why, the Supreme Court in the Lakshmi Narain Dhut's case ( AIR 2007 SC 1563 ) distinguished the decision in Swaran Singh's case by specifically holding that the latter case had no application to cases other than those involving third party risks. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to another Supreme Court decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Aggarwal (2009) 2 SCC 523 . In the case before the Supreme Court, the National Commission had held that even though the vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle and the driver did not have a valid driving licence, there was no fundamental breach of the terms of the policy. However, it was argued on behalf of the Insurance Company that the insured vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was required to hold an appropriate licence. It was further urged that if the driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle, there would be a breach of the conditions of the policy and that such a plea was available to be raised as a defence on the part of the Insurance Company. The Supreme Court ultimately found that the State Commission and the National Commission in that case had not indicated any reason for coming to the conclusion that there was no fundamental breach of the terms of the policy. The Supreme Court ultimately found that the State Commission and the National Commission in that case had not indicated any reason for coming to the conclusion that there was no fundamental breach of the terms of the policy. Both the State Commission and the National Commission had observed that the vehicle was being driven by a person who did not have a valid driving licence. It was further observed that the vehicle which was insured for personal use had been used for commercial purposes. Consequently, the Supreme Court observed that looked at from any angle, the orders of the State Commission and the National Commission were unsustainable and deserved to be set aside. The sum and substance of the decision of the Supreme Court was that if the vehicle was being driven by a person who did not hold a valid driving licence, that in itself would amount to a breach of the conditions of the policy and that such a plea was available to be raised as defence by the Insurance Company. 9. Considering the above decisions of the Supreme Court and examining the facts of the present case, it is clear that the Swaran Singh's case (AIR 2004 SC 1513) which was being sought to be pressed into service by the learned counsel for the respondents, would not be applicable because the present case is not one which relates to third party risks but pertains to a case of own damage. Therefore, we shall have to examine the terms of the contract between the insurer and the insured. The policy (Policy No. 421003/31/07/6300002014, in respect of the said vehicle, contains a specific clause with regard to the persons or classes of persons entitled to drive. That clause reads as under:- "Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive: Any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989." 10. On going through the above clause, it is evident that the person driving must hold an "effective driving licence" at the time of the accident. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989." 10. On going through the above clause, it is evident that the person driving must hold an "effective driving licence" at the time of the accident. In order to understand as to what is meant by an effective driving licence, it would be necessary to examine the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 2(10) of the said Act defines a driving licence to mean a licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. 11. Section 3 of the said Act which falls within Chapter II deals with the necessity for a driving license which clearly stipulates that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an "effective driving license" issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme under Section 75(2) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. 12. Section 14 of the said Act and in particular sub-section (2) thereof, specifically provides as under:- "(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall, (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus: and" 13. It will be evident from the above provision that there is a distinction drawn between a licence to drive a transport vehicle simpliciter and a licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. It will be evident from the above provision that there is a distinction drawn between a licence to drive a transport vehicle simpliciter and a licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. It is also clear that a licence to drive a transport vehicle simpliciter shall be effective for a period of three years, whereas, a licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of a dangerous or hazardous nature shall be effective for a period of one year only and its renewal is also subject to the condition that the driver undergoes a one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus. Clearly, there is a distinction between a licence to drive a transport vehicle and a licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. 14. The admitted case is that the driver of the vehicle in question (Mr. Mohammad Amin Denthoo) had a licence to drive a transport vehicle and did not have a licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of a dangerous or hazardous nature. The last renewal of the drivers licence prior to the accident which occurred on 09.07.2008, was granted w.e.f. 05.04.2006 and was for a period of three years upto 05.04.2009. Clearly, this was a licence to drive a transport vehicle and not a licence for carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. In other words, since the vehicle in question was carrying 264 gas cylinders which were regarded as hazardous goods even by the said Commission, the driver of the said vehicle clearly did not have an ' effective driving licence. This was a specific condition of the policy. That has been breached. As such, the respondent was not entitled to the claim that it submitted and the Insurance Company was well within its right to have rejected the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold an effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 15. Consequently, the impugned decision of the Commission dated 23.07.2013 is set aside. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company with the said Commission is liable to be returned to the Insurance Company. It is so directed. 16. The appeal is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs.