Heard learned counsel for both parties.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   As per pleadings of both the parties the complainant being owner of  a truck bearing Regd. No.OD-04-K-3219 has purchased the insurance policy from the OP covering the period from 23.8.2018 to 22.8.2018 and paid the premium of Rs.74,086/-. It is alleged inter alia that on 2.8.2019 at about 8.00 PM when the truck was going from Chandikhole to Panikoili,  met accident by dashing with a cow. Thereafter, the matter was informed to the local police and the insurer. The complainant has repaired the vehicle on payment of Rs.6,14,000/- but the OP repudiated the claim showing that the driver has no valid driving licence on the date of accident. Challenging the said repudiation the complaint was filed.

4.      OP filed written version stating that they had  insured the vehicle covering the above period from 23.8.2018 to 22.8.2019 but the accident took place on 2.8.2019. The surveyor has computed the loss at Rs.6,38,000/-. After verification of the licence of the driver, they found it has not been renewed from 14.9.016 to 17.9.2019 and as such the said driver has no effective driving licence at the time of accident. After receiving the assessment, they found that the driving licence was not valid and it was again renewed from 18.9.2019 to 17.9.2024. Therefore, they repudiated the claim. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission was pleased to dismiss the complaint.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submitted that learned District Commission erred in law by not considering the complaint and the materials on record properly. According to him the diving licence of the driver was a crucial document which should have been verified by the learned District Commission properly. He submits that  he has already filed the driving licence which clearly shows that the driver has got valid driving licence to drive the heavy vehicle till 18.9.2019. He submitted that occurrence took place on 2.8.2019 which is in between the valid period,  learned District Commission ought to have allowed the complaint. He submitted that learned District Commission have failed to apply judicial mind to the fact and law of the case. Therefore, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted  that there is clear observation in the impugned order of the learned District Commission that the driver has no valid driving licence at the relevant time for which they have rejected the claim of the complainant. 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.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the insurance policy for his vehicle covering the period from 23.8.2018  to 22.8.2019. The question arise in this case whether the driving licence of the driver was valid at the time of accident. The OP has taken the plea that the driving  licence was  not renewed for the period from 14.9.2013 to 13.9.2016 and it was renewed from 18.9.2019 to 17.9.2024 and as such it does not cover the date of accident i.e. 2.8.2019. The driving licence itself shows that it has got valid for driving transport vehicle vide Annexure –4  whichis valid up to 17.9.2024 and it is issued on 27.7.2008. When  he is authorized to drive transport vehicle,licence is valid, thus  the contention of the OP cannot be taken into consideration. Accordingly, learned DistrictCommission also has not verified the Annexure – 4 and failed to appreciate the document. Apart from this, there is Annexure – C which is a letter of the RTO, Bhadrak to the concerned advocate of the OP under the RTI Act stating that the driving licence was renewed from 18.9.2019 to 17.9.2024.But letter is silent as to whether on 2.8.2019 licence is valid or not. On the other hand, the driving licence vide Annexure – 4 shows  it was valid. So,  we are of the view that the OP has committed error in repudiating the claim, as such the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

10.    In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. The complaintpetition is allowedaccordingly. The surveyor’s report with regard to the loss computed by him is accepted to the extent of Rs.6,38,000/-. The OP is directed to pay such amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of impugned order till the date of payment besides cost of Rs.20,000/- within a period of 45 days from today failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

           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.