Mr. Justice Surinder Sarup, President—This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 1.11.1999, whereby the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay to the respondent Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 2.8.1999 i.e., the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment. Apart from this amount, the appellant has also been burdened to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the respondent as well as Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the appeal.

2. The respondent filed the complaint on the plea that she was owner of the truck bearing Registration No. HP-39-3381. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company from 13.5.1997 to 12.5.1998 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. One Shri Jindu Ram was employed by her as a driver to drive the said vehicle, who was having a valid and effective driving licence for that purpose. On 10.10.1997, the said truck fell into a gorge known as ‘Bijni Nallah’, as a result of which, it was completely damaged beyond repair. The said accident also resulted in the death of the driver Shri Jindu Ram. The FIR (copy Ex. PD) was lodged in respect of that accident at Police Station Sadar, Mandi. The respondent had also informed the Branch Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company regarding the said accident, who was requested to indemnify the respondent for loss of the truck to the extent of the amount of insurance i.e., Rs. 4,00,000/-.

3. According to the complaint of the respondent, the appellant-Insurance Company had got conducted a survey, as a result of which the estimated cost for repairs of the damaged truck was assessed at Rs. 4,93,236/-. The case of the respondent further was that she had spent Rs. 11,000/- for salvage of the truck from the place of the accident. The Branch Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company was requested time and again by her to settle her claim, but to no avail. Hence, her complaint on the ground of loss of truck as well as mental agony suffered by her for non-settlement of her claim by the appellant.

4. The appellant-Insurance Company in its reply contested the claim of the respondent on the grounds, inter alia, that the driver Shri Jindu Ram was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant time, inasmuch as there was no valid endorsement on his licence to drive the truck in question. This fact was, thus, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the claim of the respondent. Additionally, it was pleaded that the husband of the respondent i.e., Shri Subhash Soni had given a consent letter, as a result of which he was willing to accept the claim at the sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- on account of total net loss.

5. In support of her complaint, the respondent examined her husband and her power of attorney (Ex. PA). He, in turn, produced during the course of the statement, a copy of insurance policy (Exs. PB & PC), copy of the Motor Surveyor Report of the spot (Ex. PE) and a copy of driving licence (Ex. PF). In counter, the appellant-Insurance Company examined its Branch Manager Shri Ajeet Singh alongwith Vinod Kumar, Clerk of Motor Licensing Authority, Dharamshala. They also relied on certain documents which are Exs. DA/2 to DJ/1 on the record.

6. On the basis of above evidence, the District Forum below found that as per the contents of the insurance policy (Exs. PB, PC), the truck, in question, was insured for the above period, and during the pendency of the same, the accident took place on 10.10.1997. In other words, as per the case of the respondent, she was entitled to be reimbursed regarding her claim. The case of the appellant-Insurance Company rests on the sole fact, as has been submitted before us by the learned Counsel Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma on the alleged invalidity of the driving licence of the deceased driver Shri Jindu Ram. As regards this aspect of the case, w