ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 30.08.2016 passed by learned District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala whereby learned District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by complainant. Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant namely Sahib gas service agency filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that on 14.06.2014 vehicle Tata-407 bearing registration No. HP-40B-7307 was driven from Badoh village to complainant''s godown at Farna village near Ranital. It is pleaded that vehicle rolled down from road and fell into deep gorge near Khabbal Kholi village in Tehsil & District Kangra. It is pleaded that vehicle was carrying LPG cylinders at the time of accident. It is further pleaded that opposite party repudiated complainant claim. It is further pleaded that no hazardous material was carried in the vehicle at the time of accident except two filled undelivered cylinders. Following relief sought by complainant (i) Insurance claim to the tune of Rs. 181407/-( One lac eighty one thousand four hundred and seven) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum (ii) Additional relief for refund of Rs. 50.000/- (Fifty thousand) also sought for mental harassment. 3. Per contra version filed by opposite party pleaded therein that vehicle involved in accident bearing registration No. HP-40B-7307 was used for carrying LPG cylinders. It is further pleaded that LPG cylinders fall under category of hazardous goods as mentioned in rule 137 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. It is further pleaded that driver of vehicle namely Rajesh Chaudhary was holding light motor vehicle licence at the time of accident and it is further pleaded that driver Rajesh Chaudhary was not holding licence to carry dangerous and hazardous materials in the vehicle at the time of accident as required under rule 9 of central motor vehicles rules 1989. It is further pleaded that the complainant was plying vehicle in contravention of provision of Motor Vehicles Act at the time of accident. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire records carefully. 6. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire records carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination: 1) Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2) Final Order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit of Sneh Chaudhary in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is sole proprietor of Sahib gas service and is distributor of Hindustan petroleum corporation. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent is owner of vehicle i.e. light goods vehicle bearing registration No. HP-40B-7307. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was insured with opposite party w.e.f.28.02.2014 to 27.02.2015. There is further recital in affidavit that in the evening of 14.06.2014 when vehicle No.HP-40B-7307 was on its way from Badoh village to godown at Farna village near Ranital it rolled down of road and fell into deep gorge near Khabbal Kholi Tehsil & District Kangra H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that First Information Report No. 130 dated 14.06.2014 was also registered and there is further recital that vehicle was driven by Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Parkash Chand who was duly licensed to drive vehicle. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was extensively damaged and there is further recital that complainant paid Rs. 181407/- (One lac eighty one thousand four hundred and seven) for repair of vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party repudiated claim of complainant in illegal manner. 8. Opposite party filed affidavit of Navjeet Singh by way of proof Ext. OPW-1 placed on record. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is presently working as Assistant Manager Bajaj General Insurance Company limited at Panchkula. There is recital that vehicle No.HP-40B-7307 was used for carrying LPG cylinders. There is further recital that as per terms and conditions of insurance policy vehicle could not be used for hazardous goods as mentioned in rule 137 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. There is recital that vehicle No.HP-40B-7307 was used for carrying LPG cylinders. There is further recital that as per terms and conditions of insurance policy vehicle could not be used for hazardous goods as mentioned in rule 137 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. There is further recital that driver of vehicle was holding license only to drive light motor vehicle and was not holding licence to drive hazardous goods vehicle as required under rule 9 of central motor vehicles rules. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has no cause of action to file complaint against opposite party. 9. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Rajeev Razdan by way of evidence Ext. OPW-2 placed on record. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is approved surveyor of opposite party and deponent conduct survey of vehicle No. HP-40B-7307. There is recital in affidavit that at the time of accident three persons were travelling in vehicle i.e. driver and two workers of gas agency. There is further recital that all persons suffered minor injuries in accident and discharged from hospital after first aid. There is further recital in affidavit that FIR No. 130 dated 14.06.2014 was registered. There is further recital that vehicle moved in the morning carrying 112 filled LPG cylinders. There is further recital in affidavit that when accident took place at that time vehicle was carrying 95 empty gas cylinders, six defective gas cylinders & two filled undelivered gas cylinders. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that LPG cylinders carried in vehicle in question is not a contributory factor for cause of accident and insurer cannot repudiate the claim is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have perused certificate of insurance policy Annexure C-2 placed on record. There is positive condition in certificate of insurance policy that driver should hold effective driving license at the time of accident. It is proved on record that at the time of accident vehicle was carrying hazardous goods namely (1) ninety five empty gas cylinders (2) six defective LPG cylinders (3) two filled undelivered gas cylinders. Affidavit filed by surveyor Rajeev Razdan is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve affidavit filed by Rajeev Razdan. It is proved on record that at the time of accident vehicle was carrying hazardous goods namely (1) ninety five empty gas cylinders (2) six defective LPG cylinders (3) two filled undelivered gas cylinders. Affidavit filed by surveyor Rajeev Razdan is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve affidavit filed by Rajeev Razdan. There is no evidence on record to believe that Rajeev Razdan has hostile animus against the complainant at any point of time. It is proved on record that vehicle at the time of accident was carrying six defective filled & two filled undelivered LPG cylinders. As per rule 137 of central motor vehicles rules 1989 gas cylinders falls within category of dangerous or hazardous goods. As per rule 9(3) of central motor vehicles rules 1989 licensing authority should make an endorsement in driving license that driver is authorized to drive goods carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. We have carefully perused driving license annexure C-9 placed on record. As per driving license placed on record driver was authorized to drive light motor vehicle only. There is no endorsement in driving license that driver was legally competent to carry goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life in vehicle. It is held that driver was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. See 2003 CPJ 125 NC Prabhakar Transporters v. National Insurance Company. 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that accident was caused due to vis major and appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that terms and conditions of insurance policy is binding upon both parties. We are of the opinion that no one can be allowed to flout terms & conditions of insurance policy. We are of the opinion that parties cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. See CPR 2016(4) 487 NC Amandeep Kaur v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Ors. 12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent that vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and insurer is not liable to indemnity complainant is accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that there is specific conditions of driving in insurance policy annexure OP-3 placed on record. 12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent that vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and insurer is not liable to indemnity complainant is accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that there is specific conditions of driving in insurance policy annexure OP-3 placed on record. We are of the opinion that terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance police annexure OP-3 placed on record is binding upon both parties. It is held that in the present case it is proved that terms and conditions mentioned in insurance policy flouted by owner of the vehicle at the time of accident In view of above stated facts point No1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 final order 13. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Certified copies of order be also transmitted to parties forthwith strictly in accordance with rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.