JUDGMENT : Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. Insurance Company has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu, (for short 'the State Commission') vide which the appeal bearing No. 3622/2014, titled as Surjeet Singh Khorana vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., preferred by the respondent No. 3, was accepted and compensation of Rs. 2.25 lakhs was awarded. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint was filed by respondent No. 3 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jammu (for short 'the District Forum') on 12.02.2009, claiming compensation for damage to the vehicle bearing registration No. JK02U-0505, in an accident. The complainant submitted that the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 3.50 lakhs, with validity from 16.11.2006 to 15.11.2007. When the vehicle was on way from Jammu to Ramban, it met with an accident on 12.03.2007 near Nashri (District Ramban). FIR No. 19/2007 was registered for the accident on the same day. Even the petitioner/insurance company was also informed about the accident immediately. More than one year after the accident, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide intimation dated 12.09.2008. Aggrieved against the same, complaint was filed before the District Forum. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 26.09.2014. Order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission. The appeal was accepted and the respondent No. 3/the complainant was awarded compensation for damage to the vehicle on "non-standard basis". It is the aforesaid order of the State Commission which has been challenged by the Insurance Company by filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had produced on record the driving licence bearing No. 5336/RBN which was valid from 27.05.1991 to 26.05.1996 and thereafter renewed up to 16.06.2001. Driver of the vehicle was Joginder Paul Singh. The date of accident was 12.03.2007. Though the driving licence was renewed later on w.e.f. 31.03.2007 to 30.03.2012, however, on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence. Hence, the order passed by the State Commission deserves to be set-aside. The District Forum while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v/s Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, AIR 2009 SC 2987 had rightly rejected the complaint. Hence, the order passed by the State Commission deserves to be set-aside. The District Forum while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v/s Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, AIR 2009 SC 2987 had rightly rejected the complaint. However, the State Commission had relied on judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahu V. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 2090 , which is not applicable to the facts of the case. The kind of violations of the terms and conditions of the policy, which are covered in terms of the judgment, will not include lack of driving licence but only violation regarding route permit or overloading. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that he had produced ample evidence on record to show that when the driver of the vehicle was engaged, he had seen the driving licence and also that the driver knew the driving properly. This is even established from the fact that he was having driving licence which according to the Insurance Company was not valid for certain period in between. Otherwise for the period prior to the date of accident and subsequent also, he had valid driving licence. Mere non-renewal thereof, even if the argument of the Insurance Company is accepted, will not mean that the driver had forgotten how to drive. The claim was only for damage to the vehicle. It is not on account of death of the driver. The State Commission has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahu's case (supra), wherein reliance was placed upon the guidelines issued by the Insurance Company about settling claims on 'non-standard basis'. The case of the respondent No. 3 will fall within the parameters laid down therein as it was a case of breach of condition of policy and nothing more than that. Prayer was for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper book. 6. The facts of the case as are available on record are that one Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. JK02U-0505 was owned by the respondent No. 3. It was insured with the petitioner/Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs. The policy was valid from 16.11.2006 to 15.11.2007. 6. The facts of the case as are available on record are that one Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. JK02U-0505 was owned by the respondent No. 3. It was insured with the petitioner/Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs. The policy was valid from 16.11.2006 to 15.11.2007. While the vehicle was being driven by Joginder Paul Singh, it met with an accident on way from Jammu to Ramban on 12.03.2007, near Nashri (District Ramban). For the accident FIR No. 19/2007 was registered on the date of accident at Police Station, Chanderkote. The complainant informed about the accident to the Insurance Company. However, the claim for damage to the vehicle was repudiated on 12.09.2008, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. The case set up by the Insurance Company was that the driver was having driving licence No. 536/RBST, which was originally valid from 27.05.1991 to 26.05.1996 and thereafter renewed upto 16.06.2001. It was further renewed from 31.03.2007 to 30.03.2012. On the date of accident, the driver was not having a valid driving licence. The driver of the vehicle has unfortunately expired. The learned District Forum, finding that on the date of accident, the driver was not having a valid driving licence, dismissed the complaint. In appeal, the learned State Commission while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahu's case (supra) accepted the claim on 'non-standard basis'. 7. To distinguish the aforesaid judgment, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that it is one of the important conditions in the Insurance Policy that the person driving the vehicle holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident. As one of the main condition of the policy has been violated, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme court will not come to the rescue of the respondent No. 3. In view of the aforesaid judgment, violation of the type of route permit or overloading of vehicle may be covered but not absence of driving licence. 8. To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to refer to para Nos. 14 & 15 of the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahu's case (supra), which is reproduced as under: "14. 8. To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to refer to para Nos. 14 & 15 of the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahu's case (supra), which is reproduced as under: "14. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak reported in (2006) CPJ 144 (NC). In that case also the question was, whether the insurance company can repudiate the claims in a case where the vehicle carrying passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving licence and met with an accident. While granting claim on non-standard basis, the National Commission set out in its judgment the guidelines issued by the insurance company about settling all such nonstandard claims. The said guidelines are set out below:- Sr. No. Description Percentage of settlement (i) Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity Deduct 3 years’ difference in premium from the amount of claim or deduct 25% of claim amount whichever is higher. (ii) Overloading of vehicles beyond licensed carrying capacity Pay claims not cxceeding 75% of admissible claim. (iii) Any other breach or warranty/condition of policy including limitation as to use Pay upto 75% of admissible claim. 15. Form a perusal of the aforesaid guidelines it is clear that one of the cases where 75% claim of the admissible claim was settled was where condition of policy including limitation as to use was breached." (emphasis supplied) 9. It is evident from a perusal of the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case referred to in the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court that for not having proper valid driving licence or carrying passengers more than the licenced capacity are the kind of violations of terms and conditions of the policy, which were covered by the GIC in the guidelines issued to the Insurance Companies for settling the claims on 'non-standard basis'. Hence, the appeal was rightly accepted by the State Commission. 10. In view of our aforesaid discussions, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the State Commission whereby appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 was accepted. The Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahu's case (supra) has been rightly relied upon. 10. In view of our aforesaid discussions, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the State Commission whereby appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 was accepted. The Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahu's case (supra) has been rightly relied upon. Lack of proper driving licence was one of the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy where the claim to the damage of the vehicle could be settled on 'non-standard basis' as per the guidelines issued by the GIC. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.