SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: Complainant Neelakanta Joy has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle Tata SFC 407 HD bearing Regd.No.OR-15-N-9017. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant for maintaining his livelihood and was financed by O.P.No.2. The complainant had insured the vehicle with O.P.No.1 Insurance Company vide Policy No.3379-00402135-00000 dt.9.12.2009 and it was valid for the period 9.12.2009 to 8.10.2010.                    
    2. The vehicle was deployed with OMFED on contractual basis for transportation of milk and while on duty it met with an accident on dt.30.5.2010 at about 2.30 P.M.  near Hirakud Railway Station/MCL and the vehicle was damaged. This happened during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The fact of accident was duly intimated to both O.P.Nos.1 & 2. Police Case was lodged vide SDE No.101 dt.30.5.2010. The O.P.no.1 accepted the information and entertained the claim vide No.45586. On the advice of O.P.No.1 the damaged vehicle was shifted to the workshop of O.P.No.3, which is the authorised dealer service center of the manufacturer of the vehicle.
    3. The O.P.No.1 deputed one surveyor, who inspected the vehicle in the workshop of O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.3 estimated the cost of repair amounting to Rs.2,03,915 and asked the complainant to deposit 50% of the amount. Complainant had no money but under duress deposited only Rs.60,000/- with O.P.No.3 and received a money receipt.
    4. O.P.No.1 did not settle the matter urgently. Hence complainant sent letters to O.P.No.1 dated.9.8.2010, 1.11.2010 and 31.11.2010. Complainant also intimated the O.P.No.2 stating the facts of accident and requested them not to send any demand notice for payment of installment amount till the O.P.No.1 make final settlement of the claim. Complainant alleges that O.P.Nos.1 & 2 are one and same.
    5. O.P.No.3 completed the repair work and issued a bill amounting to Rs.2,03,915/-. O.P.No.1 did not pay the amount. O.P.No.2 sent repeated demand notices for payment of installment amount. Complainant sent two advocate’s notices to the O.Ps on 10.2.2011 and 15.2.2011. O.P.No.1 refused to receive the notice and O.P.No.2 made vague reply according to the complainant. Complainant again sent one notice to O.P.No.3 on dt.10.2.2011 asking it not to hand over the vehicle to O.P.No.2.
    6. O.P.No.3 issued a letter dated 2.4.2011 addressed to the complainant asking to pay Rs.2,18,938/- towards repairing charges and other miscellaneous charges within seven days or else they will hand over the vehicle to O.P.no.2. According to the complainant O.Ps are hands in globes with each other and harassing him. On the basis of the above; complainant has filed this case and prayed for the following reliefs: 
(1) The O.P.No.1 be directed to settle the claim by paying Rs.2,18,938/- towards the repairing cost of the vehicle.
(2) To pay Rs.1,20,540/- for loss sustained by him to hire another vehicle for transportation of milk.
(3) Interest @ 5% per month on Rs.60,000/- from 13.7.2010 till date which amounts to Rs.27,000/-.
(4) Compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment, physical strain and mental tension and litigation expenses for Rs.10,000/- and pay any other reliefs which the Court thinks fit and proper.
Complainant has filed documents in support of his case which are Xerox copies of 
(1) Registration certificate (2) Temporary permit (3) Insurance policy (4) Money receipts for Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/-(5) Letter by complainant to O.P.No.2 dt.9.8.2010 (6) Letter dt.1.11.2010 of complainant to DBS Finance Limited (7) Reply by O.P.No.2 dt.26.2.2011 to advocate of complainant (8)  Letter by complainant dt.1.12.2010 to DBS Finance Ltd. (9) Proforma Invoice issued by O.P.No.3 (10) Advocates notice dt.10.2.2011 and 11.2.2011 to O.P. Nos. 2 and O.P.No.1 (11) Advocates notice dt.10.2.2011 to O.P.No.3 (12) Letter dt.2.4.2011 by O.P.No.3 to complainant (13) Letter by O.P.No.2 to one Rrajendra Joy dt.3.2.2011.
Subsequently complainant also filed Xerox copies of following documents:
(1) R.C.book in the name of the complainant (2) Insurance policy (3) D.L. of driver Neelakantha Joy (4) F.I.R. (5) Money receipt for Rs.60,000/-.
    7. O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their advocates and filed their separate written versions. O.P.No.3 failed to appear and contest the proceeding. Hence O.P.no.3 was set ex-parte. 
    8. In its version O.P.No.2 claims that the complaint against it is not maintainable as it has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. There is an arbitration clause under the agreement, so she complainant should have referred the matter to the sole arbitrator. The allegation of the complainant that O.P.Nos.1 & 2 are same is false. According to O.P.No.2, both the O.Ps are different companies having separate business. O.P.No.2 is involved in banking activities including sanction of loans. So, any complaint against the insurer has to be addressed to the O.P.No.1, which is the Insurance Company
    9. O.P.No.2 alleges that it has financed the loan to the complainant which was not paid back. Complainant is a defaulter and also has violated clause-16(f) of the loan agreement and financier has rightful and legal demand against the complainant. So, complainant has no right to make any claim against this O.P. and the case against O.P.No.2 is liable to be dismissed.
    10. O.P.No.1 in its version claims that it has no branch office at Sambalpur and only after getting notice from O.P.No.2 it appeared and contested the case. It is a body corporate and it carries insurance business. O.P.No.1 further avers that this case against this O.P.is not maintainable and the present case is not a consumer dispute. It has not committed any deficiency in service or indulged in unfair trade practice.
    11. O.P.No.1 admitted that the alleged insurance policy was issued in favour of the complainant. The policy is for a goods carrier vehicle. The policy of insurance was issued subject to certain  terms conditions. One of the terms and condition regarding drivers clause of the policy says that the insured vehicle must be driven by
Any person including the insured, provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such license.
12. O.P.No.1 admits that it was intimated about the accident. It deputed one licensed surveyor, 
who inspected the vehicle at the garage and submitted his report on dt.20.10.2010 to the O.P.No.1 with net liability of Rs.1,41,030/-  after deducting depreciation, salvage and policy excess.
    13. The O.P.No.1 obtained the certified copies of the police papers and asked the insured to submit copy of the license of the driver. On verification of the driving license it found that driver Nilamber Joy had learner’s license bearing No.OR 19/LL/7143/2010 which was valid from 4.6.2010 to 3.12.2010. as the accident occurred on 30.5.2010 there was no valid and effective license of the driver Nilamber Joy on the date of accident. On the basis of this, O.P.No.1 repudiated the claim and it was communicated to the complainant vide repudiation letter dated.27.1.2011.
    14.  O.P.No.1 further avers that it has not adopted any unfair trade practice or refused to receive any letter because there is no branch office of this O.P.at Sambalpur and receipt of notice by anybody at the address of this Insurance Company does not arise at all. 
    15. O.P.No.1 claims that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands as the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground of violation of condition of the policy by the insured. On the basis of the above, O.P.No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs in favour of it. O.P.No.1 filed list of documents and copies there of which are Xerox copies of
(1) Motor insurance claim form submitted by the insured on 19.7.2010 (2)  Final survey report (3) Charge sheet-Final Form submitted by the police showing the insured Nilambar Joy as the accused driver. (4) Seizure list dated 2.6.2010 showing the D.L.No.1169 dt.1.6.2004 valid till 31.5.2024 in the name of Nilambar Joy (5) Zimanama dated 2.6.2010 showing  the D.L.No.1169 dt.1.6.2004 valid till 31.5.2024 in the name of Nilambar Joy (6) Learner’s license No.OR/19LL/7143/2010. Copy of letter of repudiation. 
    16. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the complaint petition, written versions and documents filed by the parties and placed on record. After carefully going into the matter, we find only one issue remained to be redressed in this case as to whether the Insurance Company (O.P.No.1)  has rightfully and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant and is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed?
    17. Complainant has filed a copy of judgement reported in (2015) 61 OCR (SC)
    (Kulwant Singh & Others Vrs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.)
    In the reported case, it has been held by the Honble Supreme court in para-18 as under:
 In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid  driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Max Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the 
driving licence to drive Mahindra Max  Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court  has committed  grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgement (Civil Misc.appeal No.1016 of 2002, order dated.31.10.2008 (Mad) is therefore, liable to be set aside. 
No contrary view has been brought to our notice.
18. The above decision and the clause cited in the O.P.No.1 driving license points to the fact 
that the driver at the time of accident was not disqualified from holding or obtaining valid and effective license. Besides O.P.No.1 has filed Annexure-5 which is the extract of the driving license of Nilamber Joy, which shows that he was qualified to drive LMV or non-transport vehicle with effect from 1.6.2004 to 31.5.2024 and Transport vehicle M/HMV(Registered chassis) of goods with effect from 15.2.2011. So, at the time of accident, the driver was having valid license and he was not barred to have effective and valid license.
    19. O.P.No.1 filed a copy of decision of the Honble National Commission in Revision Petition No.4290 of 2010 (IFFCO TOKIO GENL INS Co.Ltd. Vrs. Gaurav Bhargava) and another reported in (2008) CPJ-1(SC) in the case of (New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vrs. Prabhu lal)
    We have gone through the decision and find that the facts of revision case are not matching with the instant case. On the other hand as per the decision filed by the complainant as referred to above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if driver possess valid driving license for driving light vehicle and does not obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle, there is no breach of condition of insurance entitling the Insurance Company to recover. We find the decision filed by the complainant is applicable to the present case and the O.P.No.1 Insurance Company is to settle the claim on non-standard basis as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahu. 
    20. In the present case the surveyor has assessed the net liability at Rs. 1,41,030/- and the Insurance Company has to  pay 75% of this amount which comes to Rs.1,05,772.50. The surveyor has submitted his report on 20.10.2010. So, complainant is entitled to get interest on the said amount from the date of surveyors report. 
    21. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, and applying the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the reported case, we allow the case of the complainant against the O.P.No.1 Insurance Company and direct the O.P.No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.1,05,773/-(Rupees One lakh five thousand seven hundred seventy-three) with interest @ 9(Nine) per cent per annum from 20.10.2010 till the date of payment within one month from the date of order. In the circumstances of the case, no further order is passed for payment of any compensation or costs.