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

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case  of the complainant, in nutshell   is that the complainant   being owner of the vehicle bearing Regd.No.OR-02-W-5088 purchased the insurance policy for the vehicle from the OP for sum assured of Rs.2,37,150/- covering  the period from 9.12.2003 to 8.12.2004. It is alleged inter-alia that on 28.12.2003 the vehicle met accident resulting damage of the vehicle. The complainant lodged FIR at Matanga Police Station. Thereafter the matter was informed to the OP No.1. After due survey the OP found the driver has no valid driving license. Challenging same the complainant alleged before the Insurance Ombudsman who also did not give relief. So, alleging deficiency in service by the OP No.1, the complaint was filed.

4.          The OP  filed written version stating that  during investigation they have found that the driver of the vehicle had  no valid  and effective driving license because he has no  authorization to drive transport vehicle. Therefore, they have repudiated the claim. They have no any deficiency  in service on their part.

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ In the result, the complaint is allowed on contest. The Ops are hereby directed jointly and severally to reimburse Rs.2,23,757/- to the complainant towards the insurance claim under the policy. The litigation cost  is assessed at Rs.3000/- payable by the Ops to the complainant. The  entire amount be paid within one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which  the Ops shall pay interest at the rate of 9 % per annum over the said amount of Rs.2,26,575/-.

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  learned  District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version and evidence of the OP with proper perspectives. According to him the driver has got light motor vehicle license but there is no authorization to drive transport vehicle.  Since, he has no effective and valid driving license, it has violated the policy condition. Therefore,  the repudiation is legal and proper. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts and law. Further he submitted that learned District Forum erred in law by accepting the sum assured  as the settlement of  the claim amount  but actually  he ought to have considered the  surveyor’s report which  computed  the loss of Rs.1,48,000/-. In support of the claim  he submitted the surveyor’s report. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.  

7.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,   perused the DFR and impugned order.

8.                   It is admitted fact  that the vehicle of the complainant has been insured with the OP No.1. It is also not in dispute that the driver has got light motor vehicle license and he was driving the vehicle of the complainant at the time of accident. Now the question arises whether  he has infact any invalid driving license at the time of accident. Learned District Forum has analyzed  Section -21(2)  of the Motor Vehicle Act and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance  Company Ltd.-Vrs-Annappa Irappa Nesaria & others reported in  AIR-2008 (SC),page-1418.  In fact the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  in AIR 2017 SC passed in Mukund Dewangan –Vrs-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.  In Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 disposed of on 03.07.2017.  where their Lordship  observed that  the driver if  has got light  motor vehicle but driving license has no endorsement  authorizing  to drive transport vehicle, same can not be ground to repudiate claim.  Learned District Forum has also analyzed the case and  came to  same conclusion and therefore with due regard to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India we find  no error in the finding of the learned District Forum  on such issue. Learned  counsel for the appellant placed that   it is settled principle of law  that the surveyor’s report should be accepted. The amount of settlement  by the surveyor  can be the basis  for computing the loss of the vehicle.

 9.               In the instant case learned District  Forum has not discussed about surveyor’s report  but has simply accepted the loss by the   complainant as alleged. However, in view of the settled principle of law   that report of surveyor can be basis for computing loss,  considering the   report of the surveyor at loss of Rs.1,48,000/-, we are of the view that the surveyor’s report should settle   the amount of settlement payable by the OP to the complainant @ 7 %  interest from the date of impugned order till date of payment made. Therefore, while confirming the impugned order, we modified the operative portion of the impugned order  and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,48,000/- with  7 % interest from the date of impugned order till date of payment. The payment  would be made within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which it will carry 12 % interest  from the date of impugned order till date of payment. Rest of the order in the impugned judgment would  remain undisturbed.

           The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

              Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

               DFR be sent back forthwith.