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

2.     Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (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 the complainant being owner of Mini Bus bearing Registration No. OR-02Y-1226 has purchased insurance policy from the OP on 30.6.2003 for sum assured of Rs.3,75,400/-. The policy was valid from 30.6.2003 to 29.6.2004.  It is alleged inter alia that on 22.7.2003 the vehicle met accident. Thereafter, OP was informed and surveyor being deputed by the OP surveyed the vehicle. The OP assessed the loss at Rs.25,000/- but the complainant claimed Rs.1,11,453/-. However, the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver has got fake driving licence. Challenging the said repudiation, the complaint was filed.

4.     OP remained ex parte at the time of hearing although he later on filed written version. In the written version the OP stated that the driving licence of the driver was a fake one. When the driver has no valid driving licence to comply the policy condition, the OP repudiated the claim. So, the OP  have no any deficiency in service on their part.

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

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

          Accordingly, the complaint petition is hereby allowed exparte against the OP. The OP is hereby directed to reimburse the entire claim of the complainant on the basis of the bill submitted by the Bike Point Pvt.Ltd., Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar. This reimbursement be made to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order failing which the OP is to pay interest at the rate of 10% P.A. on the total claim amount till the date of actual payment. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost within the period mentioned above.”

6.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the surveyor’s report which is the basis for  assessment of the loss. Moreover, he submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the fact that there was no such damage of Rs.1,11,453/- but Rs.25,000/- has been already computed by the surveyor. It is also submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not scrutinizing the driving licence of the driver. He submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

8.     It is admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant bearing Registration No. OR-02Y-1226 during currency of the insurance policy met accident. The surveyor has computed loss of Rs.25,000/- by slashing the labour cost and cost of spare parts, we are, therefore,  of the view that without any reason same has been slashed. So 50% of the estimated labour charge and cost of the spare parts should be computed so that total loss would be Rs. 54,140/-. Now issue is whether the repudiation of the claim by the OP is correct or not. The driver has got a driving licence. We have gone through the same and find that the driver has got duplicate driving licence issued by the RTO, Bhubaneswar which is valid one at the time of accident as he has got LMV & HMV driving licence. The plea of the OP was that it was a fake one is untenable and not acceptable because no such evidence is adduced to rebut the plea of complainant.  It was not in dispute that the surveyor was deputed who computed the loss. There is no second opinion about the settled law that the surveyor’s report is an important piece of document and it should be accepted. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.54,140/- towards insurance amount with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of impugned order till the date of payment. Rest part of the impugned order remains unaltered. 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.