Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.        Captioned appeal is 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 Regn. No. OR 23E-4777 (INNOVA GX) has purchased the Insurance policy from opposite party no.1 covering the period 30.5.2016 to 29.5.2017  for a sum assured of Rs. 6,90,000/-. It is alleged that on 6.8.2016  the insured vehicle met with an accident and the matter was reported to the police and the insurer.

4.        The opposite party-insurer deputed a surveyor who computed the loss but the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the driving license of the driver was not valid. Being aggrieved the complainant has filed the claim petition.

5.        The opposite party filed written version stating that they have made survey of the vehicle after getting information of the accident but repudiated the claim  due to violation of the policy condition. They have repudiated the claim because the driver has no PSV Batch. However, they have computed the loss at Rs. 4,65,000/-, but due to violation of the policy condition they have repudiated the claim. 

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

  “ In view of the aforesaid decision referred above repudiation of the claim of the complainant on that  ground is invalid and unjustified. In our opinion the complainant is eligible to get the amount assessed by the Surveyor of Rs. 4,65,000/- only. We  therefore allowed the complaint and the O.Ps. Insurance Company are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,65,000/- (Rupees Four lakh sixty five thousand) only to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. dated 10.3.2017. Further the O.Ps. Insurance company are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only towards litigation cost to the complainant.

   All the aforementioned awarded amounts are to carried out within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order.

   Accordingly, the case is disposed of.”

7.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. Moreover, learned District Forum ought to have considered the ground of repudiation because the driver has no P.S.Badge as required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. Since the driver has no license to drive vehicle carrying passenger, the policy condition has been violated. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts and law. He further submitted that 25% deduction in absence of spot surveyor has not been assessed properly by the learned District Forum. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.        Considered the submissions of the parties, perused the DFR and the impugned order.

9.        It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident and the insurer deputed a surveyor who computed the loss, but the opposite party has  repudiated the claim as the driver does valid driving license.  The driver Krushna Sahu who was driving the vehicle has got a LMV license which is valid from 23.9.2008 to 28.11.2016 to drive non-transport and goods vehicle. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no defect in the Driving License.Although the Driving License was issued to drive non-transport and goods vehicle, but it was LMV being valid from 23.09.2008 to 28.11.2016. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have held in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vrs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, 2017 AIR (SC) 3668 that non-mention about authority to drive transport  or non-transport vehicle in D.L. cannot be a ground to reject the claim.

10.     We rely on the said decision and we find that the repudiation of claim in this regard is bad in law. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party which is clearly proved.

11.     With regard to computation of loss, the surveyor’s report can be taken as valid document to compute the loss. It is admitted fact that the surveyor has computed the loss at Rs. 4,65,000/-. The opposite party has taken the plea that due to non-spot survey in the case,  25% of the loss should be deducted. It is for the opposite party to prove that there was no spot survey. But the surveyor’s report does not give any view or his report is not clear to show that while reaching the spot he did not find the vehicle or the vehicle has been missing. The officer of the opposite party deducted 25% due to no spot survey and finally fixed the claim payable at Rs. 3,45,000/-. We only rely on the surveyor’s report who computed the loss at Rs. 4,,65,000/-.

12.     In view of the above discussions, we are  of the view that the findings in the impugned does not require for any interference and hence it is confirmed. So far compensation amount is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that 9% interest per annum may kindly be considered to reduce the same. Therefore, we modify the impugned order by directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 4,65,000/- with interest @7% from the date of impugned order till the date of recovery within a period of 45 days failing which 18% interest will be charged. The rest of the impugned order would remain unaltered.

13.     The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 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.