ORDER Arun Kumar Goel J. (Retd.) (President) (Oral) - Since these appeals have arisen from the same order of the District Forum below, as such have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Vehicle bearing registration No. HP-22-5195 was insured with the appellant and cover note" issued in this behalf is Annexure C-1. Its validity was from 28.12.2002 to 27.12.2003. This vehicle met with accident on 12.1.2003, FIR No. 42 of 2003 under Section 279 and 337 IPC was registered with police Station, Hamirpur. Extensive damage was caused to the vehicle in question and according to the respondent he spent Rs. 1,11,485/- in getting it repaired. This claim was repudiated by the appellant; therefore, respondent approached the District Forum below for redressal of his grievance because there was deficiency in service on its part. 3. As per complainant when he hired the driver, Ajay Kumar, he was holding driving license issued by the Licensing authority, Dehradun, it was renewed by the Licensing Authority, Hamirpur from 4.10.2001 to 3.10.2004 thus it was not fake. Further case of the respondent was that under law he was required to inspect the driving license and not its validity. In this backdrop rejection of the claim by the appellant on the ground that license of the driver was fake, he thus claimed sum of Rs. 1,11,485/- with interest and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. When put to notice, appellant while admitting the insurance controverted the claim set out in the complainant on a number of grounds. However, its main thrust was on the fact that licence of the driver was fake and the same was proved as such. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled any amount. Claim was exaggerated. In this behalf reliance was placed by the appellant on the report of the Surveyor, Annexure R-2 filed with the reply. It was prayed that complaint be dismissed because it raises complicated questions which could not be decided in summary proceedings. 4. Forum below while rejecting the contention of the appellant awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 35,564/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of the complaint i.e. 9.9.2003 till final payment. Rs. 500/-was levied as cost of litigation in favour of respondent and against the appellant. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 35,564/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of the complaint i.e. 9.9.2003 till final payment. Rs. 500/-was levied as cost of litigation in favour of respondent and against the appellant. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Whereas Appeal No. 242/2004 has been filed by the respondent for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Forum below to Rs. 1,11,485/- from Rs. 35,564/-. 5. Only ground urged at the time of hearing of this appeal was that the Forum below fell into error in passing the impugned order despite the fact that the licence of the driver was proved to be fake. Because it was no driving license in the eyes of the law therefore, its subsequent renewal did not validate what was nonest from the very beginning. Appeal thus deserved to be allowed per learned Counsel and he prayed for accordingly. On the other hand Mr. Roach on behalf of the respondent submitted that compensation awarded was much less than the amount actually spent by his client while getting the vehicle repaired. As such he urged that while dismissing the appeal of the Insurance Company, his clients Appeal No. 249/2004 may be allowed thereby enhancing the compensation to the amount spent by his client in getting the vehicle repaired. 6. Facts as emerge from the record are that report of Investigator was obtained by the appellant. While placing reliance on it, Mr. Singh has urged on behalf of the Insurance Company - the appellant, that the compensation if any payable in the sum of Rs. 33064/- + 2500/- as towing charges and nothing more. Though Mr. Preetam Singh, urged that respondent in the present case is not entitled to any amount. 7. We may clarify in the context of a fake license the legal position governing the same is now clear. What is fake for all purposes would be nonest in the eyes of law. Therefore, it has no existence and is simply to be ignored. Its subsequent renewal does not validate it. But in order to succeed on the plea that the licence was fake, appellant was required to place on the record at least the affidavit of the Surveyor/Investigator who had obtained necessary information from the concerned license authorities(s). Admittedly, there is no such evidence filed. And why, could not be explained by Mr. Singh. But in order to succeed on the plea that the licence was fake, appellant was required to place on the record at least the affidavit of the Surveyor/Investigator who had obtained necessary information from the concerned license authorities(s). Admittedly, there is no such evidence filed. And why, could not be explained by Mr. Singh. Only affidavit filed on the record is of Sh. B.M. Bharti, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Hamirpur (HP). It, is at page 50 of the file of District Forum. Admittedly, Mr. Bharti had not visited the offices or obtained the report(s), whereas the respondent had clearly stated in his complaint, that he had seen the license of the driver while engaging him. In these circumstances repudiation of the claim by the appellant is without basis in law, and this plea cannot be accepted. 8. In our considered view, appellant did what was expected of him as prudent person and on being satisfied, the driver was engaged. On the other hand, there is nothing placed on record to suggest on behalf of the appellant that while engaging the driver, respondent was aware that his driving license was fake. We may clarify that if it was established by cogent, reliable as well as legally acceptable evidence by the appellant, situation would have been totally different. There is nothing either in the pleadings or in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant. In the face of these facts reliance placed on behalf of appellant on the decision of the National Commission in the case tilted as Raj Kumar and another v. New India Assurance Company and others, CPJ 241 (NC), is wholly misconceived. 9. We may also, observe that the above decisions is also not at all applicable to this case. Otherwise this matter is no more res Integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Co. v. Lehru and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1292. In this case the effect of a fake license was directly under consideration before the Supreme Court. What was held and is relevant for the present case is, extracted here below:- "When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. v. Lehru and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1292. In this case the effect of a fake license was directly under consideration before the Supreme Court. What was held and is relevant for the present case is, extracted here below:- "When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that Insurance Companies-expect owners to make enquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). The Insurance Company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the license was fake the Insurance Company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. 10. As already observed respondent had shown that on being satisfied after having examining the licence of the driver he had engaged him (the driver) for driving the vehicle in question. At the cost of repetition we may observe, that there is nothing on record to suggest that the owner being aware about Ajay Kumar, driver holding a fake licence, still engaged him to drive the vehicle. As such by not settling the claim of the respondent, there was clear cut deficiency in service, thus we are of the view that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity so as to call for interference therewith. 11. Now coming to appeal No. 242 of 2004. From the examination of the record and report of the Surveyor, we are prima facie satisfied that the compensation has been allowed by Forum below is just and fair. 11. Now coming to appeal No. 242 of 2004. From the examination of the record and report of the Surveyor, we are prima facie satisfied that the compensation has been allowed by Forum below is just and fair. Because for the assessment made by the expert i.e. the Surveyor and Loss Assessor vide Annexure R-2, we cannot substitute our opinion, for that of an expert who is duly licensed by Government of India in that behalf. Nothing could be pointed out by reference to Annexure R-2 by Mr. Roach., on behalf of the respondent, so as enable us for enhancing the compensation. No good cause made out so as to discard Annexure R-2. 12. No other point was urged. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion both these appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Interim orders if any passed in these appeals shall stand vacated forthwith. No costs. 14. Authenticated copy of this order be placed on the file of Appeal no. 242 of 2004.