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 No.AP 35 T-2149 had purchased a policy for the vehicle covering the risk from 13.02.2007 to 12.02.2008. It is alleged inter-alia that on 23.11.2007  the vehicle met accident  near Turugudi village  and thereafter the matter was informed to the insurer who deputed  the surveyor. The Surveyor made survey and found that the driver of the vehicle has no valid driving license and as such it was repudiated. Challenging same as deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

4.            The  OP  filed written version stating that  after receiving  the claim they have deputed  the surveyor who had  computed the loss but  found that the policy condition has been violated as the driver has valid driving license at the time of accident.  Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on the part of  the OP.   

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                              “Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.1,15,000/- towards repair charges of the vehicle with interest @ 9 % per annum from 1.7.2008 besides Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  learned  District Forum has committed error in law by not considering their pleas.   She  also submitted  that learned District Forum has not followed  the policy condition  because the policy conditions states that there should be valid and effective driving license . But  in the instant case the driver has got  fake driving license. Learned District Forum ought to have understood  the fact and law and as such the impugned order  is illegal and improper . So, 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 during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident. It is settled in law that the complainant has to prove his case and deficiency in service  on the part of the OP. The only claim in this case is to find out whether driver has got fake driving license. We have gone through the records and found that the driving license of the driver has been valid, he has got  LMV/HMV driving license.  Learned counsel for the appellant has  failed to substantiate  any  such driving license to be fake one. Moreover, we relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1999-2000 of 2020  Nirmala Kothari-Vrs- United Indian Insurance Co.Ltd.  Where  Their Lordship  have held  at para-10 and 11 which are follows:-

10.          The view taken by the National Commission that the law as settled in the pepsu case (Supra) is not applicable in the present matter as it related to third-party claim is erroneous. It has been categorically held in the case of National Insurance  Co.Ltd.-Vrs- Swaran Singh & Others  (SCC pp.341,para 110) that

 “ 110.(ii)…. Mere absence, fake  or invalid driving licence or disqualification   of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty  of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care  in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licenced driver  or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.”

11.                    While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver  produces a licence which on the face of  it looks genuine, the employer  is not expected  to further investigate  into the authenticity of the licence  unless  there is cause to believe otherwise. If  the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii)  and the Insurance  Company would be liable under the policy. It would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country  to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the insurance company  is able to prove  that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake  or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the insurance company would no longer continue to be liable.

               With  due regard to the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that in the instant case  in our hand,  the OP has failed to prove the driving license  of the driver. On the otherhand, the driver has valid driving license. Therefore, the repudiation of  claim  is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.           So far  computation of loss is concerned, it is well settled in  law that the surveyor’s report should be the basis for computation of loss. He has come to a conclusion  to the finding of loss  for Rs.1,15,000/-.  Regarding  the computation but there is 25 % on cash loss has been deducted. Reason for cash loss is absolutely beyond the purview of surveyor in this regard. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that there is computation of loss at Rs.1,15,000/-  to which the complainant is entitled to.

                     In view of aforesaid discussion, while confirming the impugned order, modified the impugned order by directing the OP to pay Rs.1,15,000/- towards   repairing charges  with 9 % interest  from the date of impugned order till date of payment.  Rest of the impugned order will  remain unaltered.

                 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.