Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2.               None appears for the respondent.

3.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.       

4.              The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant being owner of  truck bearing Regd.No.OR-02-A8999 had purchased  insurance policy for the vehicle from OP for the period from 27.12.2001 to 26.12.2002. It is alleged inter-alia that on 16.11.2002 the vehicle met with an accident. Thereafter the claim was made. The surveyor was deputed. During survey the OP No.1 found that the driving license of the driver was fake. Therefore, they repudiated the claim. But the complainant alleged that the driving license of the driver is correct and illegally they have repudiated the claim. Hence, the complaint.

5.           The OP no.1  filed  written version stating that  the complaint is not maintainable.  It is averred by the OP No.1 that they have found that the driver has no valid driving license  at the time of accident and therefore the condition of the policy has been violated. As such they have  rightly repudiate the claim. OP No.1 has also submitted  the report of the surveyor assessed the loss  at Rs.36,300/-. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

6.        OP No.2 filed written version stating that the driver has got valid driving license upto  27.12.2000. Subsequently, the driving license has renewed  by the licensing authority from 04.03.1983 to 2006.  It is contended  of the learned counsel for the OP No.2 that the driving license has not been  renewed from  28.02.2000 to 27.02.2003 during the period  the accident took place. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service  on the part of OP No.2.

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

                  Xxxxx              xxxxxxxx              xxxxxx

“The opp.party  No.1 is directed to pay to the complainant  an amount of Rs.1,23,616.00 (Rupees one lakh twenty three thousand six hundred sixty) only spent by  him for repair of the vehicle within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount will carry on interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of default to till the date of actual payment.

     The complaint petition is allowed accordingly without cost.”

8.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version filed by the Opp.Parties with proper perspectives. The OP has found that    during accident the driver has not renewed his license till 27.02.2003 and therefore the driver has no valid license. Learned District Forum ought to have consider such fact and law.  Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

9.            Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.

10.          The complainant is required to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It  is not in dispute that during currency of the policy the vehicle has met accident and the matter was reported to the OP-insurer. The sole question in this appeal is that whether the driving license produced by the complainant is genuine or not. The driving license is produced before the learned District Forum, same appears to have been renewed from 04.03.1983 to 2000. Again renewed from 28.2.2000 to 27.02.2003 as revealed from DL. Further it is found that  it was renewed  up to 2003 up to 2006. Challenging such documents the OP has produced the verification and written version of OP No.2. They did not mentioned at all about between renewal of license. He relied upon copy of the registration of driving license issued. Said document is Xerox copy of noting made out from registration of Driving License. It has omitted the  o f the period from  2000 to 2003.   These document is  not certified to be true copy of original document. More over, there is clear copy available showing renewal of driving license from 2000 to 2003 with signature of the concerned RTO on D.L. So, it must be held that the OP has failed to prove driver of vehicle has no driving license  valid from 2000 to 2003. On the other hand the complainant has take the plea by prooving that he has  got driver’s valid driving license when occurrence took place.

11.           Learned counsel for the appellant also cited the decision  in AIR 2020 SC 4453  Beli Ramv. Rajinder Kumar and another in support of his contention. With due regard to the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the case in hand  and facts and circumstances  of the case as produced by the learned counsel for the appellant is not at all applicable to the present case. Therefore,  the impugned order is confirmed. The report of the surveyor  to compensate as to loss is perused and we found that the net loss assessed by the surveyor is at Rs.36,300/- whereas the total loss  is assessed at Rs.87,100/- . In view of the report of the surveyor and on the basis of computing  losses by the surveyor , the impugned confirmed by directing the OP to pay  Rs 36,300/-   with interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of impugned order till date of payment. Rest of the impugned order remained unaltered.

               Hence, the impugned order is confirmed.  Appeal stands  dismissed. No cost.

            Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission. 

              DFR be sent back forthwith.