Heard learned counsel for both sides.

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 has purchased a Mahindra Bolero plus four wheeler passenger vehicle vide Registration No.OR.11L/0040. The said vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Co.Ltd vide policy No.1630013113630000014 covering period from 02.04.2013 to 01.04.2014.  It is alleged that the vehicle met accident on 29.12.2013 and the vehicle was damaged. The matter was reported to the police and the O.P. The O.P appointed surveyor  who  visited the spot of accident and the place of repairing. On 31.03.2015 the O.P repudiated the claim on the ground that there is no authorization and no tax paid to the O.P. However, the complainant raised objection to  such repudiation and claimed repairing cost of  the vehicle. So the complaint was filed.

4.      The O.P.no.2 filed the written version stating that the case is barred by limitation,principles of waiver,acquiescence and estoppels. The O.P.no.2  further  averred that the vehicle was insured,  they have received the information to the accident of the complainant  and appointed surveyor during course of accident who found  that the vehicle has no relevant documents including National Permit Authorization covering period from 13.04.2012 to 12.04.2013 but  subsequently renewed  for the period of 17.01.2015 to 16.01.2020.  It is  averred further that no authorization  and no tax paid for the vehicle  from the date of accident i.e on 30.12.2013. There is no cause of action against the O.P.no.2 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this O.P. OP No.1 is  set aside.

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

“xxx       xxx       xxx

The consumer complaint is allowed against OP No.2 on contest and ex parte against OP No.1. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.3,68,052/- (Three lakhs sixty thousand fifty two) only to the complainant within two months  from the date of  receipt of this order. They are further directed to pay Rs./5,000/- (Five thousand) only towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) only towards litigation cost, within the said period.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the policy of the insurer and the written version with proper perspectives. It is further submitted that the facts and law has not taken into consideration. However, during course of argument learned counsel for the appellant submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.

8.      The only question arises whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. It is found that due to  non submission of authorization, the entire complaint case should have been  dismissed as per submission of the appellant. It is found that the National permit is their valid from 13.04.2012 to 12.04.2013. Then it was to be renewed for a period  from 17.01.2015 to 16.01.2020, it is not done. We are not concerned with the authorization of permit from time to time as it is enabling provision only but fact remains whether there is permit valid against the vehicle when accident took place. But national permit is  there for the vehicle on the date of accident. So non-authorisation time to time is not good ground to repudiate the claim. As such there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P by repudiating claim on following ground.  It is found that the surveyor computed the loss at Rs.2,09,000/-.

9.      In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order is correct but so far amount of compensation is concerned, we are of the view that the vat and 10% amount deducted as deprecation should be available to the complainant because surveyor is to compute loss to vehicle.

10.    For the forgoing reason, the appeal is allowed  in part . The O.P is directed to pay Rs.2,45,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from today ,failing which it will carry 12% interest per annum from the date of impugned order till the payment is made. Therefore, we set aside the compensation but the cost of Rs.3,000/- is payable by the O.P to the complainant as passed in impugned order within above period, failing which it will carry 12% per annum.

          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.