Mr. Justice R.C. Mankad, President—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 26,1993 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchmahals (District Forum for short) whereby the appellant’s complaint being Complaint No. 39 of 1993 is dismissed.

2. The appellant, owner of truck bearing Registration No. GRY 4761, had insured the truck with the respondent Insurance Company and the insurance policy was valid for the period fromMarch 13,1991 to March 12,1992. The truck met with an accident on April 14,1991 and it was damaged. The appellant informed the respondent about the damage to the truck and claimed to be indemnified to the extent of loss suffered by him. The Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and Surveyor, by his report, assessed the loss at Rs. 75,344/-. The respondent, however, repudiated the claim made by the appellant on two grounds viz. (1) that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid licence to drive the truck; and (2) 13 persons were travelling by the truck at the time when accident occurred. According to the respondent, the appellant had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing driver who was not holding valid licence to drive the truck by allowing 13 passengers to travel by the truck. The appellant thereupon approached the District Forum by way of Complaint No. 39 of 1993 claiming compensation of Rs. 93,286/- together with 15% interest. This complaint was resisted by the respondent on the same two grounds on which the appellant’s claim was repudiated. It was contended that the repudiation was bona fide and, therefore, it cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service.

3. The District Forum by its impugned judgment and order held to the effect that since the Insurance Company had taken necessary steps for deciding the claim of the appellant, the appellant should approach the Civil Court for adjudication of the claim. The District Forum, therefore, held that the appellant was not entitled to any relief under Consumer Protection Act. It appears that in the opinion of the District Forum, the repudiation made by the respondent being bona fide, it could not be held guilty of deficiency of service. It was perhaps, therefore, that the District Forum decided to dismiss the appellant’s complaint. Being aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. As observed above, the respondent has repudiated the appellant’s claim on two grounds viz. (1) the driver was not holding valid driving licence; and (2) there were atleast 13 passengers travelling in the truck at the time when the accident occurred. Now, so far as first ground is concerned, it appears from the two licences produced by the appellant that the driver of the truck was holding a valid driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicles. It is no doubt surprising as to how two driving licences were issued in favour of appellant’s driver. However, that is something which the R.T.O. should be concerned about. So far as appellant is concerned, the question is whether the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive the truck which was a heavy vehicle. It does appear from the endorsement made in the licence on 12.1.1988 that the driver was granted licence to drive heavy goods vehicle. Therefore, the first ground on which the appellant’s claim is resisted does not survive. The next question is whether the appellant committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by allowing atleast 13 passengers to travel by the truck. The learned Advocate for the appellant did not dispute that atleast 13 persons were travelling by the truck and out of these 13 persons one died and 12 were injured. The learned Advocate did not dispute that carrying of 13 passengers was in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. He, however, submitted that even if the appellant had committed violation/breach of terms and conditions of the insurance p