ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 26 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite party to pay insured amount of Rs. 9,46,200/- to the respondent – complainant after deducting the value of the salvage after getting the same assessed by the surveyor and taking the salvage in its custody. The District Forum has further directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the respondenttowards mental and financial agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. The above amount was directed to be paid within a period of two months, failing which the amount was to be paid together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle No. UA07-R-6778, which was insured with the appellant (insurance company) for the period from 13.01.2007 to 12.01.2008 for sum of Rs. 9,46,200/-. On 30.07.2007 at 9:30 a.m., the insured vehicle met with an accident when it was going from Joshimath to Raini. The complainant lodged the FIR with the police and also gave intimation of the accident to the insurance company. The insurance company sent its surveyor at the spot. The complainant completed all the formalities. However, the claim of the complainant was held as No Claim by the insurance company vide its letter dated 21.05.2008. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Chamoli. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant has provided the photocopy of driving licence of driver Sh. Harendra Singh S/o Sh. Pushkar Singh and it was stated that the said driving licence has been issued by RTO, Faridkot on 16.12.1997, whereas on investigation, it was found that no such driving licence was issued in the name of Sh. Harendra Singh; that the driver of the insured vehicle was having a fake driving licence and, as such, the claim was not payable and was rightly repudiated and that there has not been any deficiency in their services. 4. Harendra Singh; that the driver of the insured vehicle was having a fake driving licence and, as such, the claim was not payable and was rightly repudiated and that there has not been any deficiency in their services. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 04.10.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The main contention of the insurance company is that the driving licence of the driver Sh. Harendra Singh is forged and, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and his claim has rightly been held as No Claim. 7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the original driving licence of Sh. Harendra Singh was filed before the District Forum, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 15.12.1980 and the same was issued by RTO, Faridkot on 16.12.1997 and the said driving licence was renewed by the RTO, Pauri on 29.12.2000, 29.12.2003 and lastly on 29.12.2006. So far the contention of the insurance company that on investigation, it was found that no such driving licence was issued by RTO, Faridkot on 16.12.1997 is concerned, the insurance company did not produce its investigator for examination before the District Forum so as to prove the contents of his report. To the contrary, Sh. Vinod Kumar Nirala, Clerk, RTO, Pauri appeared before the District Forum and he has stated on oath that at Page No. 130 of the register brought by him, there are complete details regarding Sh. Harendra Singh and the photograph pasted on the original driving licence filed on record and on the register, are the same and as per the register, the driving licence of Sh. Harendra Singh was valid on the date of the accident and also that in the register, there is entry regarding issue of the said driving licence by RTO, Faridkot. He has further stated that in case the driving licence has been issued by any other Licencing Authority, then before renewal of the driving licence, the verification of the driving licence is made from the issuing Licencing Authority. He has further stated that in case the driving licence has been issued by any other Licencing Authority, then before renewal of the driving licence, the verification of the driving licence is made from the issuing Licencing Authority. Thus, from above, it is amply clear that on the date of the accident, the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence and the finding to that effect, recorded by the District Forum is perfectly justified and need not be interfered with. 8. So far as quantum is concerned, the District Forum has not considered the report of the surveyor and has not given any finding with regard thereto. V.P. Singhal and Company in their survey report dated 02.01.2008 (Paper Nos. 16 to 22), have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- on repair cash loss basis. At page No. 4 of their report, they have mentioned that after discussion with the insured on various meetings and discussions, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was offered to the insured, who agreed to accept the same as per repair cash loss value. It is a settled law that the report of the surveyor is an important piece of evidence and the same can not be brushed aside or ignored, unless there is cogent evidence to the contrary. The complainant has not filed any evidence to contradict the report of the surveyor and the District Forum has lost sight of this fact and has wrongly not taken into consideration the survey report while assessing the compensation. In our considered view, the complainant is entitled to sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the loss assessed by the surveyor. Since the insurance company has made deficiency in service by not settling the claim of the complainant and treating it as No Claim, therefore, the complainant is entitled to interest @6% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. The District Forum has awarded Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses, which is justified. The award of Rs. 2,000/- towards mental and financial agony is liable to be quashed, for the reason that the complainant has been awarded interest, therefore, there is no question of awarding separate compensation towards mental and financial agony. Thus, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. The award of Rs. 2,000/- towards mental and financial agony is liable to be quashed, for the reason that the complainant has been awarded interest, therefore, there is no question of awarding separate compensation towards mental and financial agony. Thus, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 04.10.2011 of the District Forum is modified and the appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum. Costs of the appeal made easy.