Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-02-AY-1727 had purchased the insurance policy from the OP for the period from 13.1.2016 to 12.1.2017 for Rs.4,50,000/-. It is alleged inter alia that on 8.6.2016 the vehicle met accident after which FIR was lodged before the police and  information was sent to the insured. The Op – insurer sent the surveyor who computed the loss at Rs. 60,333.46. The vehicle was repaired at the cost of Rs.1,57,743/-. Complainant approached to the OP to pay the estimate cost but the Op insurer repudiated the claim stating that the driving licence of the driver Domborudhar Patel was fake and the permit does not stand in the name of the complainant. Challenging the same, the complaint was filed.

4.      Per contra the OP filed written version stating that due to defect in the driving licence and the permit, they have rightly repudiated the claim against the complainant  due to violation of policy condition.

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

“xxxxxxxxx

As per our above statedobservation, the complaint is allowed, the OP insurance company is found to have rendered deficient service by rejecting claim of the complainant. We, therefore, direct the OP Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.60,333.46P to the  complainant along with interest @9% per annum from dtd.25.02.2017 till its realization. The OP/Insurance company shall pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only to the complainant towards litigation cost.

The above stated directions shall be complied by the OP/Insurance Company within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP Insurance Company shall be liable for interest @10% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amount till realization.

Accordingly the case is disposed of.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the points raised by the OP. According to him the complainant has maintained the name of the driver as Damburudhar Patel in the motor claim form but subsequently rectified the name of the driver as ShusilKharsel. The driving licence of Domburudhar Patel was not there. He also submitted that the  permit of the vehicle although reveals in the name of the vehicle but it does not contain the name of the complainant as owner of the vehicle. So they have rightly repudiated the claim and as such learned District Forum ought to have considered the facts and law. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant has rectified the name of the driver as ShusilKharsel. He also submitted that valid permit has been issued which stands in the name of the vehicle. So, he submitted that the impugned order should be confirmed.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident and the surveyor has verified the vehicle and computed the loss. It is settled in law that the complainant has to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The only issue in this case is to decide whether the driver Domburudhar Patel or ShusilKharsel was driving the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. No doubt the driver Domburudhar Patel was the driver of the vehicle as per claim form but subsequently complainant revised his statement that ShusilKharsel was the driver. The driver ShusilKharsel was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and his driving licencewas not disputed. The next question is permit. Provision of M.V.Act clearly shows that permit to be issued against the vehicle.  The permit stands in the name of the vehicle to ply at the relevant time of accident.Therefore, the plea of the insurer cannot be sustained.

10.    In view of aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that repudiation of the claim on a very technical point cannot be sustained.  We find deficiency in service on the part of the OP. With regard to computation of loss the report of the surveyor should be accepted. The surveyor computed the loss at Rs.60,333/-. Therefore, we confirmed the impugned order.

11.     The appeal stands dismissed. 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.