JUDGMENT V. Verma, Member.—The chief objection taken before the learned District Forum Solan, and reiterated before us in appeal against the formers order dated the 25th August, 1992 is that in view of the claim having been repudiated the District Forum ought to have declined to exercise jurisdiction and left the respondent to knock the door of competent civil court. Reliance for this proposition has been placed on the order of the Honble National Commission in Rajdeep Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd v. New India Assurance Company, 1992 CPC 88. The learned Forum below duly took the above authority into consideration and held that it has no application to the facts of the present case. The appeal does not disclose how the District Forum has gone wrong in coming to the above finding For this reason as also on merits, we are at one with the learned District Forum. 2. Probably the observations in Janta Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, O P No. 12/90, decided on 21-8-1990 (NC), have encouraged (though wrongly) the learned Counsel for the appellants to press for adjudication by a civil court rather than by the Redressal Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Most likely he has not come across the elaboration that the Honble National Commission subsequently made in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Andhra Pradesh v Shri Bhavanam Srinivasa Reddy, 1991 (2) CPR 587 (NC), and re-affirmed in M/s Raj Kumar and Co. v M/s United India Insurance Company, Iv92(l) CPR 333. These observations reproduced in extenso are to the following effect:— "Any unilateral repudiation of the contract by the Insurance Company on the allegation that there had been a Suppression of relevant material by the insurer at the time of taking policy of insurance will not disentitle the policy holder from approaching the Redressal Forums constituted under the Act seeking an adjudication of the question whether tbe said repudiation was justified in law. In such a case the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has not only the jurisdiction but also a duty to investigate into the question whether the charge made by the Insurance Company on the basis of which the alleged repudiation was made is well founded in fact In case it is found as a result of such investigation that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the contract, the complaint petition before the Forum will have to fail ; if, on the other hand, the Forum comes to tbe conclusion that the charge levelled by the insurance company is not substantiated and hence there was no justification for its purported action repudiating the contract of insurance, the contract of insurance will be treated as subsisting and an enquiry will be conducted into the merits as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of insurance company so as to entitle complaint to grant of relief under the Act- Thus, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the statutory Redressal Forums to conduct an adjudication into the complaint is in no way affected by the unilateral repudiation of the contract of insurance by the insurer. In the decision rendered by this Commission in the New India Assurance Company Ltd v. M/s. Vipro Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Revision Petition No 12 of 1990 (Reported in I (1991) C P. J. 335) it has been held that the mere fact that the insurer had repudiated his liability in respect of the claim put forward by the* * • * * • •. Therefore, merely because tbe insurer has repudiated the insurance claim under the policy unilaterally, it is difficult to hold that the various Redressal Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, I9y6 will have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. If such a contention of the Insurance Company is accepted then in every case the Insurance Company can get a report from the surveyors and repudiate the claim and thus oust the jurisdiction of tbe Redressal Forums. The Redressal Forums, therefore, are bound to see whether or not the repudiation was made in good faith on valid and justifiable grounds " The position is thus well settled that the Redressal Fora is first bound to see whether or not the repudiation was made in good faith, on valid and justifiable grounds. The Redressal Forums, therefore, are bound to see whether or not the repudiation was made in good faith on valid and justifiable grounds " The position is thus well settled that the Redressal Fora is first bound to see whether or not the repudiation was made in good faith, on valid and justifiable grounds. (Emphasis supplied) It is from this angle that the learned District Forum has carried out tbe exercise, and for this, therefore, the order under appeal cannot be faulted. 3. Let us, on our own, see whether the repudiation of the claim of the respondent was done in good faith or on valid grounds and further whether these were reasonably sound grounds In the instant case the claim has been repudiated not at the initial stage of investigation. Whether or not the driver possessed a valid or effective license is one of the few essential queries that normally should have been checked at the very initial stage of investigation of claim. On receipt of report of accident a surveyor was appointed. On receipt of his report another surveyor was appointed. At the instance of the surveyor, of course, in the pay of appellants, the respondent here carried out the required repairs and in older to ensure that there was no objection on this score, he got these carried out in the workshop he was directed to. It was only after the respondent had sought re-imbursement that the appellants held a so-called enquiry behind his back and repudiated the claim. 4. In support of the appellants claim that the driving license of the driver was fake the only evidence that has been produced is an unverified copy of communication received from one Sai Investigation Agency Gwaliar alongwith a copy of letter written purportedly by that agency to the R. T. O- Gwaliar. No effort has been made in order to make it admissible in evidence. It is worth of note that the letter in question was written on the 23rd November, 1991 and the same day the query was answered making it hard to believe that any search worth the name could possibly have been made of the record that was more than six years old. 5. It is a matter of record that duplicate driving licence was issued by the Licensing Authority Solan. Under what circumstances duplicate license was issued was not given even a fleeting thought. 5. It is a matter of record that duplicate driving licence was issued by the Licensing Authority Solan. Under what circumstances duplicate license was issued was not given even a fleeting thought. Nor was any effort made to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the license from that authority incidentally holding office just next door. 6. The burden of proof of alleged breach of the condition of the policy falls heavily on one who alleges it. That is what the Honble Supreme Court has held in Suresh Mohan Chopra v. Lakhi Prabhu Dayal, 1991 ACJ 1 (SC) and in case Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. G. A. Channabasamma, 1991 (1) CCC 133. The record be-speaks that the appellants have miserably failed to discharge the anus much less with any effectiveness. 7. In the circumstances the learned District Forum has rightly hold that the appellants "cannot be said to have repudiated the claim* * • justifiably". In our own view, it is eminently manifest that the repudiation was ordered without application of mind and on invalid and dubious grounds. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to concur with the learned Forum below. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants very strongly though vainly urged us to follow the Haryana State Commission decision rendered in case Mis. Essma Felts Pvt Ltd, Karnal Road, Panipat v. United Insurance Company Ltd.. G. T. Road, Karnal and another. Case No. 44 of 1992, decided on ^2-1-1993 by Haryana State Commission. His plea was to discard the assumption of the learned District Forum that with the repeated renewal of the license, it had lost its initial shortcoming, that of fakeness. Had the facts of the present case been identical or even similar we would have given due respect to the said order of the sister State Commission But unfortunately for the appellants the facts of the two cases are dissimilar in more than one respect. For instance in that case the complainant had admitted the fakeness of the driving license which is not the case here. In fact the averment to this effect has been repudiated vehemently by the respondent. Again the respondent Insurance Company |n that case had taken great pains to produce unimpeachable evidence and offered it for cross-examination. For instance in that case the complainant had admitted the fakeness of the driving license which is not the case here. In fact the averment to this effect has been repudiated vehemently by the respondent. Again the respondent Insurance Company |n that case had taken great pains to produce unimpeachable evidence and offered it for cross-examination. In the present oase, as mentioned somewhere above the attempt was most perfunctory and the evidence that has been relied upon is highly suspect and not worthy of credence. The ratio of the above order accordingly is not applicable. 9. From the record of the District Forum we find that the quantum of insurance claimed had not been questioned at all. The learned District Forum thus had no difficulty in making the award, which in our opinion, is fair, just and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case. 10 We are surprised to see the ground contained in paragraph 4 of the appeal; for it has been raised for the first time before us. There is no pleading on record alleging use of the truck in question in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, and/or for purposes other than mentioned in the policy nor of absence of a valid permit. We mention it only to record our rejection of this ground. 11. In the result the order dated the 25th August, 1992 of the learned District Forum, Solan, District Solan in case No DFS/59 of 1992 is upheld and the present appeal there against is dismissed. The appellants, however, are allowed one months time to comply with that order. This period would start from the date the order is pronounced. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.