Mrs. Saroj Rajwade, Member—This appeal is directed against order dated 8.7.1995 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Betul (hereafter referred to as District Forum) Case No. 98/94. After filing this appeal, the appellant filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC on 5.8.1996, with this application the appellant filed two documents. Notice was issued to respondent on this application.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent owned a truck No. MP-05-A-2533 (Tata LP) make 1991 valued at 5 lacs of Rupees (including body). This truck was insured with appellant for the period 25.10.1993 to 24.10.1994. This truck met with accident on 30.3.1994 and was totally burnt. Respondent filed a claim with the appellant and completed all formalities expected of him. When his claim was not settled for a long time, he filed a complaint in District Forum, Betul on 29.11.1994 and prayed for direction to appellant to pay him 5 lacs of Rupees with 18% interest for deficiency in service in that his claim was not settled in 3 months. In their reply, the opposite party/appellant in this case informed the District Forum that case was being investigated and it was taking longer time because the validity of driver's licence was being investigated in Assam. However, the appellant repudiated the claim on 31.3.1995 on the grounds that driver of the truck did not have valid licence and the one submitted by the driver was forged. Opposite party/appellant submitted reports of the Surveyor also in the District Forum as well as documents about investigation into the validity of driving licence. The District Forum after hearing both the parties passed an order in which complaint was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 2,70,000/- as compensation within two months of order together with Rs. 500/- as costs. If the above order is not complied in two months then interest @ 12% will have to be paid after that date.

3. Appellant in this case has laid great stress on the point that the driving licence of the driver issued in Assam was forged and therefore, repudiation of claim was lawful and cannot be treated as deficiency of service merely because investigation took time. Also investigator of the appellant was sent to Assam for this purpose and his report has been filed as documents enclosed with application made under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. Appellants further averred that Surveyor's report about loss should be believed and order of District Forum be set aside, they added in their prayer that if their plea that the licence of driver being forged was not `then the loss as reported by Surveyor be accepted.

4. We have heard both the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case including documents filed. We have also seen the order of the District Forum. The only point for our consideration is about the validity of the driver's licence. Appellant had earlier filed some documents in District Forum and al so filed some documents in the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short State Commission) after filing appeal on the plea that these were received after the appeal was filed. We are quite surprised to see that documents filed with application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC although bear dates 22.9.1995 and 27.9.1995 are absolutely identical word by word with the documents filed in District Forum. The only difference is that they bear dates 6.2.1995 and 9.2.1995. What was the purpose of obtaining documents in September, 1995 by sending letters again when they had the documents with them earlier. It is also not understood as to the need to file these documents in the State Commission with application under Order 41, Rule 27, when they were already on record in District Forum. It only shows that appellants' working is clumsy and they are careless in important matters also. Such working is not expected of then and is a pointer towards deficiency in working and therefore of service.