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

2.     This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.     The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant being owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-23-5330 has purchased policy for the vehicle from the OP covering the period from 5.8.2004 to 4.8.2005. On 28.5.2005, the vehicle met accident. After that the matter was informed to the insurer whodeputed surveyor for survey but latter repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver has no valid driving licence. Challenging the repudiation, the complaint case was filed.

4.     OP filed written version stating that the driver has no effective driving licence for which they have repudiated the claim rightly. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

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

“xxxxxxxxx

Ordered that the OP shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,19, 395/- towards the repair charges of the insured vehicle together with interest at the rate of 6% with effect from 15.12.2005 i.e. completion of about six months from the date of the impugned claim, till the actual date of payment of the amount besides an amount of Rs.500/- towards the cost of the present proceedings within one month of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to payment of any compensation.”

6.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not applying the judicial mind to the facts of the case. According to her the surveyor found the driving licence of the driver was fake and accordingly policy condition was violated. Therefore, she submitted that since the policy condition has been violated, they have rightly repudiated the claim. The learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts and law. Therefore, she submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

8.     It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident and the surveyor was  deputed  but the only question is to be decided whether the driver has a valid driving licence or not. We have gone through the records. It appears that the  driverShravan Rout  has got LMV, MGV and HGV driving licence (DL). It is well settled in law that the OP has to prove that the driving licence is a fake one. No relevant document is filed by the OP to convince us that  drivinglicence of the driver is a fake one except a letter of the investigator. The letter is accompanied by a copy of the letter of the Licencing Authority, Barasat where the drivinglicence number has been allotted to  oneSarajit Ghosh  and it was valid from 7.3.2000 to 6.3.2003  but the matter related to the year 2005. Moreover, this original drivinglicenceof  Sarajit Ghosh  or copy of thesame was not filed which should have been more relevant to find out that Shravan Rout  has no valid driving licence. Therefore, we are of  view that the  driver has no fake driving licence.

9.     It is reported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Nirmala Kothari vs. United India InsuranceCo.Ltd  passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 1999 – 200 of 2020  where Their Lordships have held that while hiring a driver the employer  is expected to verify if the  driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licencewhich on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected  to further investigate into  the authenticity of the licenceunless there is cause to believe  otherwise with due regard to said document. We are of the view that the learned District Forum has taken a right view and there is nothing to interfere with it.

9.     Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the surveyor has already computed the loss at Rs.61,300/- but the learned District Forum has passed orderdirecting to pay Rs. 2,19,395/-. She further submitted that no money receipt and utilizationcertificate has been filed by the complainant to show expenditure of Rs.2,19,395/-. So she submitted that in the event of allowing the complaint, the computation of loss made by the surveyor should be accepted.

10.   Considered the submissions of learnedcounsel for the appellant. The surveyor has computed the loss at Rs.61,300/-. Of course no money receipt is filed by the complainant towardsrepairing of the vehicle. However,  takinginto consideration of the report of the surveyor and the estimate  which is made at Rs1,23,733/-  issued by Vijay Laxmi Motors Pvt. Ltd., we are inclined to award a consolidated amount of  Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the OP – insurer to the complainant. Hence, we direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum  to the complainant from the date of impugned order till the date of paymentwithin 45 days from today failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of impugned order till the date of payment.

10.   The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         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.