Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (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 complainant being the owner of Tata Indigo Car bearing Regn.No. OD-02L-9606 purchased a insurance policy for her vehicle covering the period from 14.1.2016 to 13.1.2017 from opposite party no.1. It is alleged that on 2.1.2017 at about 7.30 A.M. one truck bearing Regn. No. OR-09-G-3159 dashed against the above car at Mahipur while the vehicle returning  from Bhubaneswar to Phulbani resulting the vehicle got damaged. Thereafter the matter was reported by Sanjay Kumar Kanhar in the outpost of Mahipur under Nuagaon Police Station. Thereafter, the matter was reported to opposite party no.1. This vehicle was shifted to ‘Maa Durga Motors Works” for repairing. It is alleged that ‘Maa Durga Motors Works’ sent a estimate of Rs. 3,89,360/- towards the repairing of the vehicle, which was also submitted to the opposite party. The complainant submitted her claim as application before the opposite parties, but the said claim was repudiated by the opposite parties without any valid reason. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint petition.

4.        The opposite party filed written version stating that during investigation,  they found one Sanjay Kanhar  was the Driver in the alleged accident vide Nuagaon P.S.Case No. 1 of 2017 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 5 of 2017 in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh. The Driving License of Sanjay Kanhar was considered as the driver at the time of accident and they have also found one Srikanta Behera to be the driver of the vehicle at that time. The surveyor computed the loss at Rs. 2,32,000/- but due to want of valid driving licence of actual driver at the time of accident, they have repudiated the claim. Therefore,  they submitted that there is no deficiency on their part.

5.        Learned District Forum after hearing the parties passed the following order:-

              “xxx  xxx   xxx

              Therefore, the case of the complainant is allowed against the O.Ps., the Ops are hereby directed to pay Rs. 2,32,000/- as per the surveyor report dated 7.7.2017 along with interest @6% P.A. from the date of claim to till the date of payment, apart from that the Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- for litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, in the event of non-compliance of this order all the awarded amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from the date of order to till  the date of payment. Accordingly, the C.C. disposed of.”

6.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by ignoring their written version. According to him, the complainant alleged about driver of Srikanta Behera but Sanjay Kanhar lodged F.I.R. to police. As the complainant has not proved valid D.L. of exact driver, there is violation of the policy condition. Learned District Forum should have considered this fact and law. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order.

7.        Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that Srikanta and Sanjay both were drivers travelling in the  vehicle as both have valid D.L. So submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is not correct. He supports the impugned order.

8.        It is admitted fact that the opposite party issued policy to the complainant. It is also admitted fact that the estimate of Rs. 3,89,360/- was served upon the opposite party. It is also not in dispute that during the currency of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident. The only confusion as to who is the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident.

9.        We have gone through the FIR which is relied on by the complainant has been filed by Sanjaya Kanhar. So there is no doubt about the statement of Sanjaya Kanhar. The opposite party has not verified the D.L. of Sanjaya Kanhar. When the D.L. of Sanjaya Kanhar has not been checked and the D.L. of Srikanta Behera has only been checked, the opposite party has committed error by not following the proper procedure of survey. Non-consideration of proper material on the part of the opposite party is a deficiency in service on their part.

10.     With regard to computation of loss, surveyor’s report is taken as the basis. Now, it appears that the Surveyor has computed the loss at Rs. 2,32,000/- to be the net loss caused to the complainant. Thus, the complainant has proved that she is entitled to Rs. 2,32,000/- towards damages to the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that interest @ 6% should be reduced.

9.        We are not inclined to reduce any interest rate but  we while confirming the findings of the learned District Forum, modify the impugned order by directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,32,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand) with interest @ 6% from the date of impugned order till the date of payment made. The rest of the impugned order remain unaltered.

           The appeal is disposed of.  

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.