JUDGMENT This is an insurance company's appeal against the order dated 07.03.1996 passed by the District Forum. Uttarkashi, whereby the complaint of the complainant Sh. Jagmohan Singh was allowed for recovery of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand)along with interest @12%. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had got a bus No. UGA-8572. It was insured. During the insurance period , on 07.02,1994 it met with an accident. Information was given to the insurance company on 08.02.1994. The surveyor visited the spot on 09.02.1994. The bus was brought on road with the help of a chain and was taken to Lingwal Motor Workshop. The bus was to be taken to Delhi for repairs. The complainant has produced the receipt of the check post before the Learned Forum. The surveyor of the insurance company visited the workshop at Delhi as well and informed that the photographs should be prepared of each and every repair. Even the body of the bus was to be repaired. The complainant got the photographs after expenses of Rs. 350/- (Rupees Three Hundred Fifty). Final survey was also done by the surveyor of the insurance company but the claim was not settled on the false ground that the complainant was not producing the driving licence and was not co-operating. The claim was neither impetrated, nor allowed. It was only dropped. Then the complaint as filed of recovery' of Rs. 1,72,000/- (Rupees One Lac Seventy Two Thousand) along with interest and compensation. 3. The opposite party filed written statement and denied the allegations of the complaint. However, the plea of the complainant that the bus was insured on the estimated cost of Rs. 2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Seventy Five Thousand) and the bus was insured during the period of the accident is admitted. It is alleged that driving licence was called for but the complainant did not produce the driving licence. Therefore the file was closed. 4. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the Learned Forum allowed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand) along with interest @12%. 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 definite evidence of the complainant that the driving licence was produced before the Police, where the FIR was lodged. 65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand) along with interest @12%. 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 definite evidence of the complainant that the driving licence was produced before the Police, where the FIR was lodged. The insurance company could have collected it from there. It could have also examined about the validity of the driving licence, etc. from the RTO office but they do not do so. The absence of the driving licence was to be proved by the insurance company. There is ample evidence that there was driving licence. The insurance company knowingly did not collect it. 6. It is to be remembered that the complainant has also filed an appeal before the Learned Commission at Lucknow for the enhancement of the award amount but his records are not available here. Both the appeals were directed to be heard and decided together. But when the records of the appeal of the complainant could not be traced and could not be received in this Commission, the Learned Attorney of the corr'1lainant stated on 12.12,2003 that he does not press his appeal and the said appeal should be deemed as dismissed as not pressed and this appeal be decided. Thereafter we proceeded to hear this appeal. 7. Now the question is aboul the quantum. The complainant has filed all the bills before the Learned' Forum. Some of the bills were disputed by the Learned Forum. Those appeals have not be produced before us but it is to be remembered that the bus was insured for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Seventy Five Thousand). It was not in moving condition. It had to be brought up with the help of a chain. It was sent to workshop but when it could not be repaired here, it was sent to Delhi, where the engine as well as body of the bus was repaired. The insurance company had directed to get the photographs of all such repairs. The complainant has spent a sum of Rs. 350/- (Rupees Three Hundred Fifty) in taking photographs and has filed the copy of all those photographs to the insurance company. 8. The surveyor of the insurance• company has reported that the loss could be settled for a sum of Rs. The complainant has spent a sum of Rs. 350/- (Rupees Three Hundred Fifty) in taking photographs and has filed the copy of all those photographs to the insurance company. 8. The surveyor of the insurance• company has reported that the loss could be settled for a sum of Rs. 14,340/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Forty) only, Such extensi:,e repairs cannot be done in a sum of Rs. 14,340/-.(Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Forty) only, . where the engine as well as the body of the bus both are to be repaired. 9. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the insurance company, Smt Anjali Gusain that the amount as awarded by the Learned Forum is conjectural one. The entire evidence has not been produced before us but the bills were produced before the Loomed Forum and the Learned Forum had examined each and every bill. It has rejected the bills, high in the opinion of the Learned Forum were defective, and after examining the bills, the said amount has been awarded. 10. We therefore did not find anything for which we may interfere with the finding recorded by the Learned Forum. 11. The net result is that we do not find any force in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy.