Heard learned counsel for both parties.

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.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant being owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-10-A-3341 has purchased the policy from the OP. According to him, during currency of the policy, the vehicle met accident and the matter was  informed to the OP but the OP repudiated the claim for which the complainant filed the complaint.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the OP has taken the plea that the claim was repudiated by the OP as the driver has no valid and effective diving licence. According to him, learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the impugned order directing the OP to reopen the file and take necessary step for payment of the reimbursed amount as per entitlement of the complainant within 60 days. He submitted that they have already obeyed the order and as per provision of law repudiated the claim.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant instead of filing any complaint case further or appeal has approached the learned District forum vide Misc. Case No. 13 of 2004 arising out of  CD Case No. 48 of 2004 by stating that the order passed in CD Case No. 82 of 2003   has not been complied for which the OP should be punished and accordingly, learned District forum directed the OP to pay Rs.2,000/- for violation of the impugned order dated 16.4.2004. He submitted that since the order has already been complied and there is no direction for settlement of the amount, there is no violation of the order for which the imposition of penalty is uncalled for. Further, he submitted that learned District Forum although passed order on 25.10.2004 to  drop the case, yet passed order in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2004 on the same date which I illegal an improper. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2004 by allowing the appeal.

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned District Forum has already directed to settle the claim by allowing the claim which is not obeyed by OP, the order dated 25.10.2004 cannot be challenged in this appeal. He further submitted that the OP admitted that the complainant is eligible to get Rs.29,000/- as per the report of the surveyor but at the same time, repudiated the claim which is not proper.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for  both parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      No doubt there was a complaint case filed vide CD Case N. 82 of 2003 and that was disposed of directing the OP to reopen the file of the complainant and take necessary step for payment of the reimbursed amount as eligible to the complainant within 60 days. The order does not disclose that the learned District Forum has settled the amount and the same has to be paid by the OP. The OP contended that after reopen of the file, they found that the driver has no valid driving licence, so they repudiated the claim. When there is reopen of the file and repudiation of claim, this Commission is of the view that the OP has obeyed the order in legal sense. If there is already order complied and same has also been admitted in the impugned order dated 25.10.2004 in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2004 which arise out of CD Case No. 48 of 2004 which is merged with the order in CD Misc. Case No. 13 of 2004, the imposition of penalty of Rs.2,000/- upon the preset appellant is unwarranted.

9.      In view of aforesaid provision, this Commission is of the view that the impugned order being illegal is set aside and the appeal sands allowed. However, on merit of the complaint case, it is better if the OP settle the claim by considering to pay Rs.29,000/- as assessed by the surveyor, to the complainant on their approach further within 45 days from today in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court  2017 (4)  TAC Page – 11. This observation is given in view of the facts and circumstances o f this case.

            DFR be sent back forthwith.

            The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.