Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased Insurance policy for his vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-23-9225 covering the period from 13.06.2006 to 12.06.2007. The complainant has alleged that the vehicle met with an accident on 12.06.2007 causing  damage to the vehicle. Thereafter, F.I.R was lodged and the matter was informed to the O.P. The surveyor was deputed to the spot and he computed the loss but repudiated the claim. Challenging the repudiation as illegal and deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

3.       The O.P filed the written version stating that they have investigated the matter and found that the driver has a fake driving license  for which they have repudiated the claim .  Therefore, is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4.         After hearing of both parties, the learned District Forum has passed the following order:

           “xxx   xxx   xxx

              Ordered that the O.P shall to pay to the complainant an amount of RS.500/- towards the cost of the present proceedings within one month of receipt of this order failing which interest at the rate of 9% with effect from 01.03.2008 i.e. completion of about four months from the date of the impugned claim, till the actual date of payment of the amount shall be payable by the O.P, on the aforesaid amount. There shall be no order as to payment of any compensation.”

 5.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law  by not considering driving license of Sanjay Kumar Jujo who has driving license No. 2735/1995 but in claim form complainant has alleged that above driving license number belongs to  driver Rajesh  Mahato, learned District Forum has not  appreciating materials on record properly. So the impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

6.        Considered the submissions. Perused the DFR and impugned order.

7.      It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the vehicle met with an accident. It is also admitted fact the matter was informed to the insurer who deputed the surveyor. The complainant has alleged that repudiation is illegal. Now   question arises whether repudiation is illegal or not .On the other hand, the O.P has made investigation. On perusal of copy of the driving license submitted by the O.P, it is found that the driving license bearing no. 2735/95 belongs to Sanjau kumar Jujo. The only observation made by the learned District Commission that the complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the concerned driver Rajesh Mahato but not filed original driving license of said driver. The Xerox copy of the driving license of Rajesh has been verified by the learned District Forum. The reason for not accepting the driving license of Sanjau Kumar Jujo has been arrayed as accused in the charge sheet is irrational because such driving license does not bear the photo of the driver Sanjau. We find in the claim form that complainant has described the name of driver as Rajesh Mahato carrying riving license No. 2735/95 but original driving license of Sri Mahato was not produced by the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has not applied the judicial mind to the driving license of the driver but verified the driving license which does not belongs concerned driver Rajesh. But belongs to Sanjay Kumar Jujo. Thus, driving license of Rajesh is fake. So, the policy condition has been violated by complainant.  Hence, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum should be set aside and it is set aside.

9.      The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.