Heard learned counsel for  both sides.

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.   As appears from the pleadings of both the parties the complainant having a Truck bearing Registration No. OR-23A-0121 has purchased the policy for the vehicle from the OPs covering the period from 22.9.2007 to 21.9.2008. It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle met accident on 22.9.2007 but the OPs insurer did not make payment of the insured amount or IDV although the complainant has spent money for repairing of the same. Challenging the action of the OPs, the complainant filed the complaint.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. They have further stated that the driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time had no valid and effective driving licence. For that they have repudiated the claim. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

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

“xxxxxxxxx

The opposite parties are directed to settle the claim of the said vehicle of the complainant within 30 days from the date of order along with 9% interest per annum. Further the OPs are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only towards mental agony and harassment given to the complainant which includes the cost of the case.”

6.      Challenging the verdict of the learned District Forum learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not going through the materials on record. He drew attention of the Commission to the report of the RTO, Barasat and the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle in question. Accordingly, he submitted that the learned District Forum ought to have applied judicial mind to consider all these facts. Therefore, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that   they have already submitted all the records. The driver has got valid driving licence as available from Licencing Authority, Sambalpur and the document filed by the OPs are still in doubtful. So he supports the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the  partiesand perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      The admitted facts are (i) the complainant has insured his vehicle with the OPs (ii) the vehicle met accident and the matter was reported to the insurer (iii) the insurer have repudiated the claim stating that the driving licence of the driver is a fake one. But yet issue is to be decided whether the driving licenceis fake one or not. We have gone through the copy of the original driving licence where it is found that the driving licence stands in the name of the driver issued by the RTO, Sambalpur. Learned counsel for theappellant drew our attention to the copy of the driving licence issued by the RTO, Barasat. We find that the said document is not the actual xerox copy maintained by the RTO office. Apart from this, the RTO signature is not legible. Therefore, we do not believe the document filed by the appellant. Rather, it is found that the  they sat over the matter for long years to settle the claim. Therefore, sitting over the claim for years together is deficiency in service on the part of the insurer. The same finding has been arrived by the learned District Forum.

10.    In view of the above discussion,  however, both the counsel submitted that the surveyor has already settled the claim for Rs.46,800/-. It is settled in law that surveyor’s report is basis to compute settled claim if it is unbiased. Considering the above aspect, we hereby while confirming the finding of impugned order, directing the OPs to pay Rs.46,800/- as computed by the surveyor to the complainant with interest at the rate of 7% per annum  from the date of impugned order till payment is made within 45 days failing which  the interest would be 10% per annum from the date of impugned order till payment is made.

11.    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.