JUDGMENT K.D. Shahi, Chairman.-- This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 23-08-96 passed by the District Forum, Nainital. 2. Shri Murli Dhar Agarwal, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for compensation on the ground that he was an owner of truck No. U. G. P.4471. It was insured. Within the insurance period, the truck met with an accident by which the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 80,000/-. He preferred the claim before the Insurance Company. The Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver did not hold a valid license. 3. The learned Forum held that the claim of the complainant was bonafide and the driver held a valid license. Therefore, the complaint was allowed. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 5. The only dispute in this appeal is whether the driver had a valid license on the date of accident. Other facts have been admitted. 6. The accident took place in Kumaun Hill area where the license of the driver was indorsed for driving in hill roads of Garhwal region. It was argued that the driver could not have drive the vehicle in the Kumaun region where the accident took place. What is necessary for endorsement is that it should be a hill area. There is no question of any specification of any particular hill. The intention of the licensing authority was clear that the driver was a competent driver to have drive the vehicle in hill areas. In a similar case, in appeal No. 96/2002, New India Insurance Company v. Sh. Rishikesh Kumar Agarwal, this Commission has given a finding that this type of objection is immaterial. Even otherwise in view of the ruling reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramdhan Aggarwal1, even if there was no valid driving license, the claim should have been settled on non-standard basis at 75% which means that the claimant is entitled to the claim even if there is some defect in the license of the driver. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the next second surveyor has surveyed the loss only of Rs. 60,000/- and alternatively if the appeal is not allowed, the claimant should be allowed a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- only. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the next second surveyor has surveyed the loss only of Rs. 60,000/- and alternatively if the appeal is not allowed, the claimant should be allowed a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- only. There is also earlier report of the surveyor assessing the compensation of Rs. 80,000/-. It is a settled principle of law that unless the first report is set aside on cogent ground, it is the first report alone which might bind the parties. 8. There is no force in this appeal and the appeal is to be dismissed. . ORDER 9. The appeal is dismissed however in the circumstances of the case, cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.