National Insurance Company Limited, which was opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present revision petition.

          Case of the respondent was that his Tempo Trexs bearing No.MP-04-F-9286, which was insured with the petitioner insurance company, met with an accident on 27.5.2003 and was damaged.  Insurance claim was lodged by him in respect of said damages for a sum of Rs.1,20,000 which was repudiated by the petitioner insurance

-2-

company on the ground that the driver who was driving the said vehicle, was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident.  Being aggrieved, complainant/respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and came to the conclusion that the person who was driving the vehicle on the date of accident, did have a valid driving license.  Finding recorded by the District Forum on this point reads as under:

         “The admitted case is that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the respondent on the date of accident ad it has also come that on 27.5.2003 when the driver Ramesh Malviya was driving the vehicle of the complainant then the vehicle met with an accident at that time and was damaged.  It is also clear the complainant lodged insurance claim with the respondent on which respondent appointed surveyor S. K. Khanna to assess the damages who submitted his report on 28.6.2003 assessing the total damages to the tune of Rs.97,803/- of the vehicle.  Respondent repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of the accident the driver Ramesh Malviya was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle.  The investigator Rajender Singh Lamba of the respondent has stated that he traced

-3-

out the particulars of the licence of the drier Ramesh Kumar from the office of RTO Bhopal and found that he was issued licence on 17.2.98 for driving M/cyl and LMV and thereafter licence was endorsed from LMV to LTV for the period 9.2.99 to 13.1.2002.  They stated that at the time of accident driver Ramesh Malviya was not holding a valid driving licence and on this ground the respondent repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant.  During the hearing of the complaint the record pertaining to driving licence of the Ramesh were called for from the RTO Bhopal which were produced and filed on 18.1.2005 by the licencing authority Bhopal and in which it is clearly stated that Ramesh Malviya was issued driving licence for driving M/cyl and LMV (pvt) for the period 17.2.95 to 13.1.2012 and thereafter on 9.2.99 the licence was changed to commercial licence it validity was till 13.1.2002 and thereafter duplicate licence was renewed for 28.2.2004 to 27.2.2007.  After seeing the report of the RTO it is clear that on the date of accident driver Ramesh was holding licence to drive pvt. LMV vehicle and on that date he was not holding commercial licence which is seen that the vehicle of the complainant is a private vehicle and driver Ramesh Malviya was holding lilcence to drive LMV on that date in this evidence if the complaint is seen then it can be seen that at the time of accident driver Ramesh

-4-

Malviya was holding a valid driving licence but on the wrong the basis the insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated by the resondet which shows deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  That after considering the fact and circumstances it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Rs.97,803/- as per the report of the surveyor S. K. Khanna and on the said amount the respondent should pay interest @ 6% p.a. to the complainant from 4.11.2003 till the date of decision.  Besides this the respondent should pay litigation expenses of Rs.500/- to the complainant.” 

(Emphasis Supplied)

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed a appeal which has been dismissed by the State commission.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard.

          It is evident from the reading of above finding recorded by the -District Forum, which is based on material on record, that the driver Ramesh Malviya had a valid driving license on the date of accident.  The plea taken by the petitioner that the driver did not have a valid driving license, has rightly been rejected by the foras below.  The said finding is endorsed.

-5-

          Counsel for the petitioner, then, contended that the petitioner would be entitled to salvage or value of the same assessed by the Surveyor at Rs.7,500/-.

          We have gone through the report of the Surveyor.  The District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.97,803/- which does not include the value of salvage.  Admittedly, no salvage has been returned to the petitioner.  Accordingly, the order passed by the foras below is modified to the extent that the respondent would now be entitled to Rs.90,303/- along with the awarded interest and litigation costs.

Counsel for the petitioner states that he has already deposited 75% of the amount in terms of the directions issued by us on 15.7.2005 which has already been withdrawn by the respondent.

Petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount, as assessed by us, to the respondent within 4 weeks.