G.D. Sharma, J. 1. The complainant, Mst. Hajra Begum, filed this complaint, seeking reliefs for the indemnification of loss in the sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs, which was the insured risk of petrol tanker No. JK01A-5165 and it was completely destroyed in the accident. She has also claimed cost of the petrol and diesel worth Rs. 1,52,631/- which was loaded in that petrol tanker at the time of accident. In addition to that compensation of Rs.3.00 lacs is claimed for mental torture and expenses incurred in entering into correspondence for a long time with the OPs. Interest @ 18% P.A. is also is claimed. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that her husband namely. Inayatullah Kakru, was the licence holder of Bharat Petroleum Co. for setting up of business of sale of petrol and diesel in his petrol pump which was located in the town of Baramulla, Comprehensive insurance policy bearing No. 420801/31/96/63/0057 had been obtained covering the risk of Rs. 5.00 lacs and the same was effective from 20.6.1996 to 19.5.1997. On 9.8.1996, the insured petrol tanker, after loading petrol and diesel left from Jammu to its destination of complainant's petrol pump known by the name of Baramulla Garages but unfortunately on the way at 167 K.Ms of National Highway it skidded down in the depths of "Khuni nallah" and after rolling down about 800 feet burst into pieces. The impact of fall ignited fire, which consumed the loaded petrol/diesel. The driver and the cleaner were also burnt alive. S. Gurpurab Singh S/O Mohan Singh r/o Singhpora (Barmulla) was the driver and he possessed driving licence No.DL-908/J which was issued on 13.5.1962. All the documents of the insured tanker, including the driving licence and challan of the loaded diesel petrol were burnt. After receiving the information of the accident, case was registered in the Police Station Ramban and final report was submitted before the authorities which corroborates the fact that the tanker in question had skidded down from the national highway about 800 feet down and its body was broken into pieces and all the material was totally burnt. The driver and the cleaner were also killed on the spot. 3. Mr. Inayatullah had raised the claim with the OPs and they were giving assurance for the settlement of the claim but unfortunately he died on 31.1.1998. His widow, Mst. The driver and the cleaner were also killed on the spot. 3. Mr. Inayatullah had raised the claim with the OPs and they were giving assurance for the settlement of the claim but unfortunately he died on 31.1.1998. His widow, Mst. Hajra Begum, made all possible efforts to get the claim settled but she failed in her attempts and finally filed the complaint herein on 15.5.2002. During the pendency of the proceeding, she also died and her son, Bashir Ahmed Kakru, has been brought on record as sole legal representative. The OPs M/s Arun Kumar & co. for conducting the survey and they were assisted by inayatullah during his lifetime by producing all the documents which were available with him but after his death nothing was heard. Legal notices were given on 12.5.2001 and 10.1.2002 by his widow Mst. Hajra Begum but no information was received about the decision taken in the case. 4. In the written version, the OPs have taken preliminary objection to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant had not cooperated with the surveyor as no relevant documents were produced before him. Registered notice was also served for the production of those documents but when they were not made available the claim was closed on 26.2.1997. The OPs deputed Sh. D.K. Magotra surveyor for verification of the driving licence of the driver who reported that it was valid for plying heavy transport vehicle only from 12.5.67 to 12.5.68. The driving licence was not valid because it had no endorsement on it to the effect of carriage of "goods of hazardous nature" in a vehicle. Since it was a case of holding an invalid driving licence so the claim was repudiated on the ground that it violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Furthermore, it was pleaded that the complaint was time barred as after 1997 no body from complaint's side had approached the OPs. 5. In support of the complaint, Abdul Aziz Sheikh and Mohd. Amin Parray appeared as witnesses, whereas on behalf of the OPs the Branch Manager Mr. Hazara Singh appeared as a witness. Mr. Abdul Aziz Sheikh has deposed that he has been serving as Manager of the complainant firm for the last 25 years and is fully conversant with all the business transactions. Amin Parray appeared as witnesses, whereas on behalf of the OPs the Branch Manager Mr. Hazara Singh appeared as a witness. Mr. Abdul Aziz Sheikh has deposed that he has been serving as Manager of the complainant firm for the last 25 years and is fully conversant with all the business transactions. According to him the tanker in question, which was loaded with petroleum products was being driven by an expert driver namely, Gurpurab Singh who was employed long ago, after proper verification of his driving licence. He has given the estimate of total loss of the insured vehicle as well as the goods loaded therein and corroborates the police version that the driver and cleaner had died on spot and all the relevant documents were destroyed in the fire. After long drawn correspondence with the OPs no settlement was arrived at as OPs took no steps for the indemnification of the loss. He has categorically stated that the claim had not been repudiated. That after the death of the proprietor of the firm, namely, Kh. Anayatullah Kakru, his widow Mst. Hajra Begum pursued the matter but settlement was not effected. 6. Mr. Mohd. Amin Parray had been serving as salesman of the complainant for the last ten years and has supported the version of Abdul Aziz Sheikh. S. Hazara Singh Manager, who has appeared as a witness on behalf of the OPs, has admitted that M/s Arun Kumar and Co. were deputed by the OPs to make assessment of the loss and their report dated 10.12.1996 was received in the office of the OPs wherein loss to the tune of Rs. 3,68,500/- was admitted. That report was accepted by the complainant by writing a letter dated 26.11.1996 (annexure A2). 7. At the out-set, we have to decide whether in terms of annexure A2 the assessment made by M/s Arun Kumar & Co. can be deemed as full and final settlement of the claim or not. Annexure A2 is a document prepared on the letter pad of M/s Arun Kumar & Co. which allegedly bears the seal and signature of the owner of the firm M/s Baramulla Garages. On this declaration there are no signature of the insured namely, Inayatullah Kakru under his seal. He had died on 31.1.1998. Annexure A2 is a document prepared on the letter pad of M/s Arun Kumar & Co. which allegedly bears the seal and signature of the owner of the firm M/s Baramulla Garages. On this declaration there are no signature of the insured namely, Inayatullah Kakru under his seal. He had died on 31.1.1998. The onus of proof was on the OPs to discharge that it was a voluntary acceptance of the alleged settled claim on behalf of the complainant, which has not been discharged. It can thus be said with no manner of doubt that annexure A2 has no evidentiary value. 8. The next question which requires consideration and determination is whether that claim was closed on 26.2.1997, as has been pleaded in the written version and stated on oath by the Manager S. Hazara Singh in his deposition. The complainant has placed on record annexure P 15, which is a letter dated 26.2.1997 written by the OPs to Late Inayatullah Kakru (predecessor of the complainant), which clearly recites that last and final opportunity had been given to the said Inayatullah to submit the driving licence of the deceased driver Gurpurb Singh issued from the duly competent authority as well as other documents referred to in OPs letter dated 4.2.1997. One week time form the date of the receipt of that letter was given to Mr. Inayatullah to produce all documents mentioned therein failing which his case had to be closed as "no claim". It is thus proved that said letter dated 26.2.1997 establishes the fact that the claim in question had not been closed on 26.2.1997 and it was surviving. There is no evidence on the record to prove the fact that alleged order of "No claim" was served upon the complainant. Since the repudiation of the claim had not been proved, so question of the claim becoming time barred does not arise. The objection is over ruled. 9. The third issue which is involved in the case is whether the deceased driver Gurpurb Singh was having a valid or invalid driving licence and the onus was on the OPs to prove that he was not having valid driving licence. In the complaint it was alleged that the dead bodies of the driver and cleaner were extensively burnt in the fire alongwith all the documents. In the complaint it was alleged that the dead bodies of the driver and cleaner were extensively burnt in the fire alongwith all the documents. The OPs had produced certified copy of his driving licence in support of their contention, as taken in the written version, that he was having an invalid driving licence because it was valid only to drive heavy transport vehicles w.e.f. 13.5.65 to 12.5.68 and had no endorsement on it for carriage of goods of hazardous nature. The OPs themselves have placed on record a certificate issued by the licensing authority Srinagar (annexure A3), which recites that the licence was valid upto 4.12.1996. The accident had taken place on 9.8.1996, which means the licence was valid at that time. There is also endorsement on this licence to ply heavy goods vehicles and heavy transport vehicles. Further the onus was on the OPs to prove that petroleum products in the form of diesel or petrol were such goods which were of hazardous nature and there was a condition in the insurance policy which envisaged that carrying of such goods in the insured vehicle would be a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. No such term/condition from the insurance contract has been produced which proves the facts that petroleum products such as diesel/petrol were of hazardous nature and they could be carried in a motor vehicle, the driver whereof should have a specific endorsement to the effect under rule 9(1) of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. The contention raised in the written version has not been proved and the objection is of no help to the OPs. Not only that from the perusal of the report of M/s Arun Kumar & Co. we find that he has deducted Rs. 80,000/- as value of salvage, when there is no evidence that salvage was on the spot and it had been retrieved. Rather evidence of cogent nature is that everything was burnt on spot because of fire. He has also on his own fixed the market value of the insured vehicle at Rs. 4.50 lacs only on the basis of inquiries made from the local market which method has no legal recognition. Moreover, the risk of the insured petrol tanker had been totally destroyed. In other words, it was a case of total loss, so the assessment made by M/s Arun Kumar & Co. 4.50 lacs only on the basis of inquiries made from the local market which method has no legal recognition. Moreover, the risk of the insured petrol tanker had been totally destroyed. In other words, it was a case of total loss, so the assessment made by M/s Arun Kumar & Co. to the tune of Rs. 3,70,000/- for indemnification purpose also loses its significance. 10. In view of the discussion made above, we find that by not settling the claim of the complainant the OPs are found to have committed deficiency in service. We, therefore, accept the complaint and direct the OPs to indemnify the complainant upto the extent of Rs. 5.00 (five) lacs, being the total loss of the insured vehicle, alongwith interest @ 8% P.A. From the date of loss till final payment is made. The OPs are also ordered to bear the litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 8,000/-. The file be consigned to records.