JUDGMENT K.C. Bhargava,J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Hathras in complaint case No. 153 of 2000. 2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is the owner of Maruti car bearing registration No. UP 81 F0516 which was insured with the opposite party, The New India Insurance Company which was valid from 28.11.1998 to 27.11.1999. The insurance was got done for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. on 8.2.99 the insured Maruti car met with an accident and it was totally damaged. An F.I.R. to this effect was lodged with the Police station. Chandra pal, the driver of the vehicle, died on the spot and he was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 24.10.1999 by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Aligarh. The driver had a valid licence. The complainant put up a claim with the insurance company but it was repudiated on 25.9.2000. The complainant has therefore, filed the complaint claiming the insured amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- , Rs 100,000/- as damages and Rs. 11,000/- towards rent of garage where the damaged vehicle is kept as well as Rs. 1000/- as cost. 3. The opposite party in the written version has admitted the insurance ant accident of the vehicle and alleged that the licence of Chandra-pal Driver was Hence the licence was not valid. The complainant is therefore not entitled to claim any amount. The claim has been rightly repudiated. 4. The parties filed evidence in support of their respective contentions before the learned District Forum who after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that there was deficiency on behalf of the insurance company. Hence it directed the Insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. A sum of Rs. 3000/- was also awarded damages for mental torture as cost. The compliance of the order was to be made within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment. 5. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party Insurance company has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. We have also heard the learned Counsel for respondent/complainant, Sri Pankaj Rai . 7. 5. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party Insurance company has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. We have also heard the learned Counsel for respondent/complainant, Sri Pankaj Rai . 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the licence of the driver Chandra pal was fake. It is not denied by the appellant that the driver Chandra pal died in the accident and his kin has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by judgment dated 24.10.1999 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Aligarh. This clearly goes to show that the driver Chandra pal had a valid licence at the time he was driving the accidental vehicle. The learned District Forum has mentioned this fact in its judgment. We have also perused the Photostat copy of the licence which has been filed by the appellant. A perusal of the driving licence goes to show that Chandra pal had a licence to drive L.M.V. (P.E.). It shows that Chandra pal Driver had licence to drive light motor vehicle. He was driving the Maruti car which is a light motor vehicle. It has been argued that the word P.E. is fake and this word is not commercially used under the Motor Vehicle Act. This is a superfluous argument. A copy of the letter written by Sri H.L. Varshney is on record which has been written by him to the Branch Manager of New India Assurance Company, Aligarh regarding verification of the driving licence of Chandra pal Singh. He has mentioned that the endorsement for L.M.V. (P.E.) is fake which means that Chandra pal Driver had light motor vehicle licence which was valid, but the endorsement of P.E. is fake. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments, that P.E. is fake, then it will not mean that Chandra pal Driver had no licence to drive light motor vehicle. Thus we are of the opinion that the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the driver did not have a valid licence is wrong and is rejected. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the claim was settled with the complainant on 2.10.99 for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-. Thus we are of the opinion that the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the driver did not have a valid licence is wrong and is rejected. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the claim was settled with the complainant on 2.10.99 for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-. This fact has already been mentioned by the surveyor in his report dated 16.4.99, but this acceptance of claim was not honored by the insurance company and the claim for Rs. 1,15,000/ - was repudiated on 25.9.2000. If the claim was settled for Rs. 1,15,000/- then the appellant should have paid this amount to the complainant as final settlement of the claim, but instead of adhering to the settlement of the claim, it repudiated the claim on 25.9.2000. after about two years on the ground that the licence of the driver was fake. As such this agreement arrived between the parties has not been honored by the insurance company and now it cannot turn back and say that the complainant is entitled to Rs. 1,15,000/- only. This argument of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant had stated that he has only claimed for the damages for the parts only and no other damages, while the surveyor had calculated the loss on the basis of parts and damages to the vehicle. The perusal of the report of the surveyor goes to show the accidental vehicle was inspected by him and it was a fit case of total loss. The complainant has drawn our attention to para 3 of the survey report in which it has been mentioned that the surveyor after inspecting the vehicle was of the opinion that it is a fit case of total loss and accordingly he has sent a status report to the insurance company. This clearly goes to show that the vehicle is a total loss. It has further been mentioned by the surveyor that the cost of salvage is Rs. 45,000-. 8. The vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The vehicle was purchased in December 1997 and met with an accident on 15.6.99. Therefore, the depreciation shall be deducted from the cost of the vehicle of 10%. The vehicle was insured for Rs. 45,000-. 8. The vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The vehicle was purchased in December 1997 and met with an accident on 15.6.99. Therefore, the depreciation shall be deducted from the cost of the vehicle of 10%. The vehicle was insured for Rs. 2,00,000/-After deducting 10% depreciation value of the vehicle on the date of the accident, the cost of the vehicle comes to Rs. 1,80,000/ -. The learned District Forum has not taken this fact into consideration and had come to a total loss based on the value of spare parts. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,80,000/- plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum which has been allowed by the learned District Forum. The complainant will have to return back the salvages to the insurance company for getting this claim. Thus the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. Order 8.1. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the complainant shall get Rs. 1,80,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of expiry of three months from the date of submission of the claim papers till the date of payment. The complainant shall return the salvages to the insurance company. With this modification the rest portion of the judgment and. order is confirmed. If any payment has been made in the meantime to the complainant by the appellant the same shall be deducted from the amount payable by the appellant. The complainant shall also get a sum of Rs. 2000/- as cost of appeal. 8.2 Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. 8.3 Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties.