Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the Insurance Company against the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the District Forum, Rudraprayag whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for recovery of Rs. 70,000/- and compensation and cost of litigation of Rs. 1,000/- as well as compound interest @ 8%.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Sanjay Samwal was the owner of jeep. It was insured with the appellant. During the insurance period on 22.6.2003 it suffered accident. The matter was reported to the Insurance Company. The Surveyor came and directed the complainant to get the vehicle repaired in Krishna Motors, Dalawala, Rishkesh and promised to pay the entire amount of repairs. The complainant spent Rs. 70,000/- in repairs and claimed it from the Insurance Company. When the Insurance Company did not pay, he filed the complaint.

3. The Insurance Company filed written statement and admitted that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle. It further admitted in para 3 of the complaint that the vehicle met with an accident on 22.6.2003. However it is denied that the Surveyor asked the complainant to get the vehicle repaired. The plea of the Insurance Company was that the driver of the vehicle has got no valid driving licence, therefore, the claim was liable to be rejected. The complainant has got the repairs done according to his own wishes and has shown excessive expenses. The Insurance Company has appointed Surveyor Sh. R.K. Saraswat who has surveyed the vehicle after accident and he has given the report that the complainant may be paid a sum of Rs. 51,977.63.

4. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them the learned Forum allowed the entire claim of the complainant incurred in the repairs of the vehicle, against which order the present appeal has been filed.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. There is nothing in the written statement of the Insurance Company that on what basis the repudiation order has been passed. The copy of the repudiation order has been filed in appeal, which shows that in spite of letters and reminders the required papers have not been supplied. What are those required papers has not been explained. It was further written that you have withdrawn your claim by giving your consent through your letter dated....We are closing your claim file as NO CLAIM. This withdrawal letter has not been filed. The claim was ultimately rejected on the ground that the hill endorsement was not found in the driving licence. The driving licence was issued from Rishikesh. Rishikesh is a hill area. We have considered this aspect in a number of cases. The rules of hill endorsement were enforced under the U.P. Rules in which Uttaranchal was also included. Earlier there was Province Uttar Pradesh which included both Uttaranchal and Uttar Pradesh. Most of the area in Uttar Pradesh was plain area, therefore, when a vehicle was to be driven in hills by any driver whose licence has been issued in plain area, there was necessity of hill endorsement but after the bifurcation of Uttaranchal, which is a hill State, if certain area in this Uttaranchal State in plain area, then also the entire Uttaranchal is said to be hill area. In any hill area if driving licence is issued or renewed, it is issued for driving in the hill area itself. Therefore, separate endorsement does not appear to be necessary. It is not the licence was issued in Lucknow and the vehicle was being driven in the hill area for which endorsement was necessary.

6. Now coming to the loss of the complainant, there is no evidence that the Surveyor has told the complainant to get the vehicle repaired without the intervention of the Insurance Company as and what the complainant desires. The Surveyor has given an estimate of Rs. 51,977.63, say Rs. 52,000/- and we have got no reason to differ with the finding of the Surveyor. Therefore, according to us the complainant