Brief facts of the complaint ar that complainant is owner of vehicle TC 2515 Tata bearing registration No. PB 08/ AE 0916 and he got insured the said vehicle with the opposite party vide insurance cover note No. 112568 dated 27/6/2007 and this cover note was valid from 26/6/2007 to 27/6/2008. For this insurance complainant paid amount of Rs.15268/- as premium and detail of this amount is mentioned n the cover note. The above noted vehicle was insured for a value including accessories for Rs.6,25,000/-.<br /> That unfortunately, this vehicle met with an accident on 11/4/2008 at about 2.30 A.M. near Shamlaji and this vehicle was badly damaged in this accident and matter was reported to the Police at Police Station Shamlaji and thereafter complainant lodged insurance claim bearing No.31/09/094 before opposite party i.e. Insurance Company who appointed a surveyor who inspected the abov4esaid vehicle on 12/4/2008 and the surveyor assured the complainant that damage to the vehicle is to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-. Complainant got the vehicle repaired and he spent amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on the repair of the vehicle. . Complainant provided all documents to the opposite party but the opposite party is lingering the matter on one pretext or the other.<br /> That to the utter surprise of the complainant, opposite party repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dated 24/12/2008 on the ground that driver of said vehicle was not having a legally valid driving license . Opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence this complaint.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Branch Jalandhar road, Kapurthala through its Manager. Opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written statement. In the written statement, opposite party has taken certain preliminary objections and has also mentioned that driving license of the driver was not legally valid. <br /> 3. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit Ex.C1.<br /> 4. On the other hand opposite party produced in evidence affidavits Ex.OA to OC and documents Ex.O1 to O6.<br /> 5. After conclusion of evidence by both the parties, arguments were heard from counsel for the parties. That issuing of insurance cover note and insurance of the vehicle No. PB 08/ AE 0916 is admitted by both the parties and opposite party admitted that they issued insurance cover note No.112568 dated 27/6/2007. It is also admitted case of both the parties that on the date of accident this vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party. It is also admitted by the opposite party that they appointed surveyor to M/s S.L. Passi & Co. Govt. approved surveyors & Loss Assessors who duly inspected the vehicle in question . In this accident, left hand of the driver was also injured and at the time of accident, this vehicle was going from Hoshiarpur to Baroda and in the way vehicle dashed with a bridge wall. In his report surveyor observed that 35 parts of the vehicle were damaged and as per report of the surveyor , he assessed total loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.99164/-.<br /> That objection of the opposite party driving license of the driver was not legally valid is not correct one because driving license of sh.Sukhdev Singh son of Nasib Singh was duly renewed three times by the competent authority. The affidavit which was submitted by the opposite party Ex.OA is sworn affidavit of Pritpal Singh Surveyor and he mentioned in his affidavit that officials of DTO, Jalandhar renewed this driving license from 4/5/2005 to 3/5/2008 for driving a heavy transport vehicle and as per affidavit of Pritpal Singh , original driving license No.3746/Kapurthala/1992-93 issued by DTO, Kapurthala was renewed by the DTO, Jalandhar three times and at the time of accident on 11/4/2008, it was a valid driving license renewed by the DTO Office, Jalandhar upto 3/5/2008. We have also perused report of Licensing Authority, Kapurthala Ex.O3 and we are of the view that report of officials of the DTO office, Kapurthala is not clear. The officials of the office of DTO Kapurthala has not mentioned in his report that driving license in question of Sukhdev singh was not issued by the office of DTO Kapurthala and he has only mentioned about a series of number which is not a solid proof that license of Sukhdev Singh is not valid. So plea of the opposite party that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle Sukhdev Singh was not having valid driving license cannot be accepted.<br /> In view of the discussion above we accept the plea of complainant that vehicle No. . PB 08/ AE 0916 owned by the complainant met with an accident and at that time the vehicle was legally insured by opposite party and driver of the vehicle was having valid license. Earlier also vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and complainant lodged claim No.2k8/0438 under policy No.31/2k82713 and at that time driving license of this driver Sukhdev Singh was considered by opposite party as valid and claim of Rs.57500/- was paid to the complainant.<br /> So we accept the complaint and also accept report of surveyor and opposite party is directed to pay the amount assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.99164/- to the complainant and opposite party is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10000/- for mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in service besides Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation payable to the complainant by the opposite party within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of order rendered be supplied to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh<br /> 28.5.2009 Member Member President.<br />