Heard learned counsel for   the appellant. None appears for  respondent.

    2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case   of the complainant, in nutshell is that  the complainant  being owner  of OR-16C-1499 had purchased policy for the vehicle from OP for the period from 01.02.2011 to31.01.2012. On 25.06.2011 the vehicle met accident. Thereafter the matter was informed to the insurer who deputed the surveyor. The OP repudiated  the claim on the ground that the vehicle was used as transport vehicle  whereas  the policy has been made as private car. Since, the policy condition has been violated, they have repudiated the claim. Challenging such repudiation, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP  filed written version  stating that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP  as the vehicle has been insured as private car but claim made as transport vehicle, therefore  they have repudiated the claim.  Thus, there  is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  

5.              After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “Thus,under the circumstances we direct the Ops to pay Rs.64,895/-(Rupees sixty four thousand eight hundred ninety five) only after deducting the depreciation as per procedure and to be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant within the above period failing which the Ops would be liable to pay 12 % (Twelve percent) interest on the awarded amount after 30 days of receipt of this order till the date of actual payment of the awarded amount to the complainant.

                   The case is disposed off accordingly.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him the parties are   bound by the policy condition and the certificate of insurance. Since, the vehicle has been insured as private car but used as taxi, they have repudiated the claim. The learned District Forum  ought to have considered such fact and law.   At the same time they submitted that the surveyor has computed the loss at Rs.29,800/-.  So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

8.                 The only point in this case   arises  whether the  repudiation of the claim is legal and proper. The complainant, in order to prove his case has filed the detailed invoices, insurance certificate and the certificate of fitness registration. It appears from the certificate of registration that the vehicle has been registered  as taxi purpose. The insurance policy shows that it has been insured as car without any mention of same for a transport vehicle. The insurance policy should be in accordance with the certificate of registration. The insurance certificate is issued by the insurer. When the RTO has recorded the registration and the purpose of the vehicle, any other mention in the certificate of insurance will not defeat the case of the complainant. Rather, we are of the opinion that on flimsy ground the repudiation is made. It is reported in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4071 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022 in Gurmel Singh-Vrs- Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd.  to support his case of complainant. It is well settled in law that any repudiation of claim on flimsy ground is  itself  is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.           Therefore, we are of the view that the repudiation in this case is on flimsy ground itself deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The surveyor has computed loss of Rs.29,800/-. It is settled in law that the computation of the loss by surveyor  should be the basis of repudiation of claim unless it is bias  or with other infinities.  Therefore, while confirming the impugned order, we hereby modify the operative portion of the impugned order by directing OP to pay Rs.29,800/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Rest of the impugned order will remain unaltered.

               Appeal  is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

               Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

               DFR be sent back forthwith.

                Statutory amount be refunded.