Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President — Against the order dated 30.3.1992 the opposite party before the District Forum, Dausa has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein). The opposite party-appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,800.7p to the complainant-respondent within one month from the date of the order failing which interest was made payable @ 18% p.a. on the aforesaid amount. Facts leading to this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The complainant-respondent Chiranjilal owned vehicle No. RNG1653. He got it insured with the opposite party for the period 26.4.1989 to 25.4.1990 cover note No. J.R./88 146289 was issued. The vehicle was comprehensively insured. On 10.6.1989 the vehicle met with an accident on Lalsot-Dausa Road. At that time driver Rajendra Prasad was driving the vehicle. He was having licence of Light Motor Transport Vehicle i.e. Light Motor Transport Delux bearing No. 81991 which was valid upto 4.5.1992. The complainant informed the opposite party-appellant about the accident. The complainant got the spot survey done. On the advice of the mechanic the complainant submitted a claim for Rs. 40,000/- to the opposite party-appellant for the repair of the vehicle. While getting the vehicle repaired, Rs. 28,000/- were spent. The company did not accept the amount and told the complainant that according to the rules only a sum of Rs. 15-20 thousand can be paid and so the bills after reducing the amounts may be submitted. The complainant submitted some bills of the parts purchased and for other parts he only obtained kacha slips. As asked the complainant deposited the salvage. The complainant got his vehicle transferred to L.T. V. on 21.3.1989 as asked by the opposite party. The company avoided making the payment and on 26.4.1990 refused to make any payment. The complainant threatened them to pursue his remedy in a Court and so one month after the complainant was called and he was told that the payment will be made. He was told that only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- can be paid. The complainant insisted for the full payment. He was told to come after one month. As the payment was not made, ultimately the complainant was filed on 23.10.1989. The complainant filed a previous complaint in this regard and the date fixed was 28.5.1991. The complainant’s Counsel could not reach in time and, therefore, the second complaint was filed. In para 12 of the complaint it was so mentioned. The complainant prayed that a sum of Rs. 28,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident until payment may be awarded from the opposite party. In support of the complaint, affidavit of Shri Chandra Bhan Singh, Advocate was submitted.

2. The opposite party submitted the version of the case dated 30.9.1991. It was presented on 1.10.1991. A peliminary objection was taken that previously Complaint case No. 1247/90 was filed which was dismissed in default on 28.5.1991 and, therefore, in respect of the same subject matter the complainant is estopped from bringing a new complaint. It was also submitted under the head preliminary objections that the vehicle was driven by a person who was not authorised to drive as the vehicle in question was Medium Motor Vehicle and the person driving the vehicle was having the licence of Light Motor Vehicles and as such on this ground the claim was repudiated and the claim was not payable. On merits amongst others it was submitted that the claim of the complainant was inflated. Facts stated by the complainant were denied. It was denied that the bills were submitted by the complainant. In para 2 of the additional pleas it was stated that on the basis of the bills that were submitted by the complainant the claim was processed and according to which amount of claim payable came to Rs. 10,800.7p. But as the vehicle was not driven according to the conditions the claim was repudiated. Shri Gajanand Gupta, Authorised Officer of the company submitted a