Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.      The pleadings as available from both the parties is that the complainant being owner of  Maruti Van bearing Registration No. OR-09E-7173 has purchased the insurance policy for the vehicle from OP Nos. 1 and 2  covering period from 25.11.2004 to 24.11.2005. It is alleged inter alia that on 27.8.2005 the vehicle met accident at Devra under P.S. Midnapur. Thereafter, the vehicle was damaged and the passengers were also injured. After the accident the matter was reported to the insurer - OP Nos. 1 and 2 who after investigation found that the driving licence of the driver was not valid. They repudiated the claim but the complainant challenged the repudiation and filed the consumer complaint.

4.      OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed written version stating that the policy was issued valid from 25.11.2004 to 24.11.2005 but the driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective diving licence at the time of accident for which they have repudiated the claim. So, they have no deficiency in service 5.    Learned District Forum after  hearingboth the parties  dismissed the complaint.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has passed the impugned order without analysising the case properly.  It is further averred that there is clear certified copy of the driving licence which shows that the driving liccence of the driver was valid from 25.10.2005 to 24.10.2008 and the occurrence took place on 27.8.2005. Since the driving licence of the driver was valid at the relevant time, the repudiation of the claim is wrong. Therefore, he submits to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

7.      Learned counselfor respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that they have collected the information through their investigator coupled with the certified copy of the RTO concerned and found that the driver has no valid driving licence at the time of accident but the learned District Forum appreciating the fact and law has passed the impugned order. Therefore, he supports the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the    respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      The only question in this case whether the driver has valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident because during currency of the policy the accident took place. We have gone through the several certificates ofdriving licence of driver issued by the RTO from time to time. Annexure – 5 shows that the driver has got a light motor vehicle licence during the period from 25.10.2005 to 24.10.2008. Other certified copies produced by the insurer shows that those remarks are not dealt with.

10.    Be that as it may, the fact is very clear the driver has got a valid driving licence. Now two opinions emerge (1)  the driver has got driving licence from 22.11.2003 to 24.8.2005 but it has not been renewed further. The another opinion said that the driver has got the driving licence which is valid from 25.10.2005 to 24.10.2008. When two views are produced the views favourable for the consumers should be taken into consideration as per the settled law. So the documents in favour of the consumers are considered  as  they are also correct one.

11.    In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the learned District Forum in their majority order has not considered the matter properly and therefore the majority order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed.

12.    It is settled in law that the surveyor’s report should be considered to compute the loss. Since the surveyor’s report shows Rs.1,46,147/-  has been assessed by the surveyor, we hereby direct  OP Nos. 1 and 2 – insurer to pay such amount to the complainant within a period of 45 days failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of impugned order till the date of payment. BesidesOP is also required to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to complainant within the said 45 days.

        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.