Heard learned counsel on behalf of both parties.

         2. This appeal has been filed U/S-15 of Consumer protection Act 1986(Herein after called the Act) against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission,Bargarh. The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.

  3.        As it appears from the pleading of both parties that the complainant has purchased Insurance policy for his vehicle Tata Pick up van bearing Regd No-OR-17-G-1889 from OP for the period covering from 01-10-2009 to30-09-2010. It is alleged by both parties that on   21-04-2010 the vehicle met accident and thereafter claim was made. It is alleged by the complainant that OP without proper   verification, repudiated the claim stating that the driver was not driving the vehicle. The helper was driving the vehicle but he has no valid and effective driving license. But the complainant stated that he has informed the aforesaid matter to the insurer that actually Monoj Kumar Sahu was the driver of vehicle at the time of accident but the O.P did not accept the fact and treated the claim of the complainant as “no claim” on Dt. 17-10-2011. Hence, the complaint was filed by the complainant.

4.           On the other hand, the O.P filed written version stating that they have already surveyed the vehicle and repudiated the claim because the driver has no valid driving license but Monoj Kumar sahoo was the driver at the relevant time and he has valid driving license. As such, the OP has rightly repudiated the claim. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.   After hearing both parties Learned District forum has passed following orders as follows:

        “Hence the Opposite party is directed to pay an amount Rs. 1,60,000/- ( Rupees one Lakh sixty thousand )m only for the loss caused by the accident of the vehicle and Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand ) only for the mental agony sustained by the complainant for the deficiency cause by the Opposite party delaying in dealing with the case of the complainant , within thirty day from the date of the passing of the order and in default of which an interest @ 9% per  annum would accrue on the whole amount till realization of the same”.

6.Learned counsel on behalf of appellant submitted that the learned District Forum without considering the material facts passed the impugned order and submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. According to him, Assis kara was not the driver but Monoj Sahu was the driver. The complainant suppressed the material facts. Learned District Forum ought to have applied judicial mind to the fact and law involved in this case. So he submitted to allow the appeal.

7. Learned counsel on behalf of respondent submitted that as per the claim petition Ashis Kara was authorized to drive the vehicle and he was possessing D.L for light Motor Vehicle which is invalid and effective at the relevant time of the accident. According to him endorsement to drive a transport vehicle is not necessary. The appellant had relied upon the judgment of Apex court in oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vrs. Angad Kol & otherswhere it has been held that necessary endorsement to drive a transport vehicle will be required on a license for LMV .

  8.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for parties, Perused DFR and impugned order.

  9.     It is admitted fact that the vehicle met accident during currency of policy and claim was made. It is admitted fact that surveyor has computed the loss Rs.1,60,000/-. When the complainant submitted the name of the driver, we have considered the name. It appears that the driving license of the driver is valid one and found from the record that he has got authority to drive non    transport vehicle. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vrs Orintal Ins, Co. Ltd reported in A.I.R 2017 SC3668 . There is no necessity for mention of “transport” & “Non-transport”in the DL.

  10.      In view of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India driver has got the valid driving license. Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P in repudiating the claim.  Learned Counsel on behalf of appellant submitted that it is barred by limitation. We have considered the matter and found that  repudiation has not been made  till disposal of the claim by the O.P.  Such cause of action continuous and the case has not been barred by limitation.

  11.      Therefore, the impugned order is confirmed. The appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Respective parties to bear their own cost.

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

                                                         DFR be sent back forthwith.