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

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-19-D-9196 has insured the vehicle with the OPs. During currency of the insurance policy, the vehicle met accident on 5.12.2005. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the OPs who deputed surveyor but the claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver has no valid driving licence. Being aggrieved with that repudiation, the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 4.     OPs filed written version stating that after receiving information, they have deputed the surveyor who computed the loss at Rs.43,760/- but not Rs. 1,32,607/- as claimed by the complainant. But they have repudiated the claim as the driver Saroj Kumar Garnaik has no valid driving licence. So, there was no any deficiency in service on their part.

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

                                         “xxx   xxx   xxx

The complaint petition is allowed. The opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.1,32,607.00 (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred Seven) and Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees One Thousand) towards litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from today i.e. the date of judgment.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing the impugned order which is illegal and it has not considered the written version with proper perspectives. According to him the learned District Forum ought to have considered the fact that Saroj Kumar Garnaik has no driving liccence bearing No. 96 dated 25.1.2001 as that belongs to one Sanjaya Kumar Garnaik. Since the driving licence is defective one, policy condition has been violated and thus, the repudiation is legal and proper. Learned District Forum has erred in law by passing the impugned order. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      Complainant is required to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.      It is admitted fact that the vehicle during currency of the insurance policy has met accident. The vehicle having been damaged was given for repairing and  the matter was informed to the OPs. It is also not in dispute that surveyor was deputed by the OPs and he has computed the loss at Rs.43,760/-. The only dispute in this case is about valid driving licence of the driver Saroj Kumar Garnaik. We have gone through the driving licence of Saroj Kumar Garnaik which is very much pasted with the photograph of Sri Garnaik and there is no infirmity found on it. On the other hand, OPs have produced the driving licence of one Sanjay Kumar Garnaik stating that this driving licence is more authentic than the licence of Saroj Kumar Garnaik. The name of the father in both the driving licence is same and there being no photograph annexed to the driving licence of Sanjay Kumar Garnaik, the photograph of Saroj being affixed on the driving licence of Saroj Kumar Garnaik is taken as valid driving licence. Therefore, the repudiation on the ground of fake driving licence is rejected. In this regard, the finding of the learned District Forum is held to be correct and legal.

10.    So far computation of loss is concerned, it appears that the cash memo of different shops have  been filed by complainant. But, it is well settled in law that the surveyor’s report unless being biased can be accepted as the basis for computation of loss. The surveyor’s report is clear to show that there is computation of loss at Rs.43,760/-.

11.    In view of above discussion while affirming the impugned order, the operative portion of the impugned order requires modification and as such we modify the impugned order by directing  the OPs to pay Rs.43,760/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the impugned order till payment is made to the complainant. The payment shall be made within 45 days from today failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Rest part of impugned ordre remains unaltered.

12.    Thus, appeal is allowed in part. 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.