ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 13.8.1999 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the complaint of the complainant was rejected. 2. The complainant had a Mahendra Jeep. It was insured from 17.6.1997 to 16.6.1998 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It met with an accident on 16.8.1997 near Pitthoragarh. The complainant lodged the claim with the Insurance Company but it was repudiated. Therefore, he filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/-, insured amount. 3. The Insurance Company admitted the insurance. However, it alleged that there was no endorsement on the licence of the driver for driving the vehicle in the hills of Kumaon, although there was no endorsement for driving the vehicle at Dehra Dun. It is said that since the driver did not hold a valid licence, therefore, the claim was repudiated. 4. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them the learned Forum held that although the driver has got the licence to drive the vehicle in the hills of Dehra Dun, i.e., Garhwal region but he has got no endorsement to drive the vehicle in Kumaon region. The learned Forum held that although the roads are similar but since this is a valid and technical objection, the complaint was rejected. Against this order the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. It is not said that the driver was incompetent to drive the vehicle or he was not an expert driver. The entire objection is regarding the endorsement. The efficiency of the driver has not been challenged. The Insurance Company has appointed Surveyor Sh. Sant Kumar and he visited the spot. He found that the vehicle was worth Rs. 1,15,000/- on total loss basis after deducting the price of the parts which have been stolen. The Surveyor assessed the value of the salvage as Rs. 40,000/- and he recommended for the payment of Rs. 75,000/- . The Surveyor further reported that the insurer, i.e., the Insurance Company has been consulted and the insured was offered Rs. 1,15,000/- on total loss basis but the insured insisted to get Rs. 2,00,000/-. 6. In a case decided by us on the basis of the ruling reported in I (2003) CPJ 204 (NC), Oriental Insurance Co. 75,000/- . The Surveyor further reported that the insurer, i.e., the Insurance Company has been consulted and the insured was offered Rs. 1,15,000/- on total loss basis but the insured insisted to get Rs. 2,00,000/-. 6. In a case decided by us on the basis of the ruling reported in I (2003) CPJ 204 (NC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramdhan Aggarwal, in a similar case where the accident took place in Kumaon hills area where the licence was endorsed for driving in hill roads of Garhwal region, we have held that what is necessary for endorsement is that it should be a hill area. There is no question of any specification of any particular hills. The intention of the Licensing Authority was clear that the driver was a competent driver to have driven the vehicle in hill areas and, therefore, we directed to settle the claim on 75% non-standard basis. The complainant has also referred the ruling of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramdhan Aggarwal, quoted above in which too the claim was allowed in similar circumstances, where the claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company was directed to settle the claim on non-standard basis. In these circumstances we find that this was a fit case where the complainant should have been allowed claim on non-standard basis. The price of the vehicle has not been given in the complaint but it was insured for Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is said to be 2 years old vehicle and the Surveyor has assessed the price of the vehicle as Rs. 1,15,000/- after reducing the price of the articles stolen. We do not find any reason to differ from that finding of the Surveyor, nor there is anything on record to show that the Surveyor has given an incorrect finding. Thus in our view if 25% deduction is given from a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- i.e., Rs. 28,750/-, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 86,250/-. 7. The salvage is with the complainant. It is not clear whether he has sold it or used it or has got the vehicle repaired. Thus in our view if 25% deduction is given from a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- i.e., Rs. 28,750/-, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 86,250/-. 7. The salvage is with the complainant. It is not clear whether he has sold it or used it or has got the vehicle repaired. The learned Counsel for the complainant was also not able to inform us about this fact, therefore, we think it proper that the salvage should remain with the complainant himself and after deducting the price of the salvage, i.e., Rs. 40,000/-, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 46,250/-. Since the claim of the complainant has unnecessarily been rejected, he should get interest on this amount from the date of his notice, i.e., 13.5.1998 @ 9% till the date of actual payment. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 13.8.1999 is hereby set aside. The complaint is also hereby allowed. The Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 46,250/- (Rupees forty six thousand two hundred fifty only) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% payable from 13.5.1998, i.e., the date of notice till the actual date of payment. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed. –