PER SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN. J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.10.1997 of J&K State Consumers Protection Commission. Srinagar (hereafter for short State Commission), dismissing appellants claim in complaint No. 324/96 on the file of State Commission. 2. Appellants case before State Commission was that their vehicle with registration mark and number JKC-4865 was covered by insurance policy for a sum of Rs 2.50 lacs for the period commencing from 22.12.87 to 21.12.88. During subsistence of insurance: policy, the vehicle met an accident on 17.2.1988 at Barindi Brahmina Tehsil Uri District Baramulla. The vehicle was total loss after it fell in river Jehlum. The State Commission, after taking complaint on record is sued notice to opposite party (O.P.), who filed written statement. The parties led evidence The State Commission on hearing parties dismissed the complaint. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The State Commission has concluded on the evidence and material placed before it that the vehicle has been deliberately thrown in the river Jehlum with a view to make out a case for grabbing sum assured for utilisation towards repayment of loan raised to finance the vehicle from the Bank. To reach this conclusion, State Commission has relied on the report of preliminary surveyor and loss assessor Shri Baljinder Singh, report of Jehlum Investigating Agency, the final report of Police Investigating Agency in FIR 11 of 1988 registered at P/S Uri in respect of occurrence in question and non-availability of hospital record regarding alleged hospitalisation and treatment of the driver of ill-fated vehicle. From record, it is seen that Shri Baljinder Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor went to the spot immediately and inquired about the matter. On inquiry, he got suspicious and asked for a detailed investigation which was entrusted to Jehlum Investigating Agency Pvt. Ltd. This agency on investigation found the claim spurious and put forth only to cheat Insurance Company and recommended that the claim may be repudiated. The final report in FIR 11 of 1988 (supra) also speaks of the claim as not genuine, but made to indemnify the financiers qua the outstanding liability against the claimants. The final report in FIR 11 of 1988 (supra) also speaks of the claim as not genuine, but made to indemnify the financiers qua the outstanding liability against the claimants. Though the driver of the vehicle one Lal Din in his deposition before the Forum has stated that he sustained injuries but escaped the death and was hospitalised for two days, yet no record, may be even certificate or a memo showing his hospitalisation and extending medical attendance in a hospital, has been produced before or made available to the State Commission. The State Commission has on detailed analysis and appreciation of evidence and material placed before it, found that the occurrence in question cannot be said to be an accident. Throwing vehicle in Jehlum river, was intentional and a planned act with a view to grab monetary benefits, cheat the Insurance Company and get rid of useless vehicle, otherwise a junk. From the tell tale facts, total evidence and material and chain of circumstances on record, the conclusion reached by the State Commission is fully covered by preponderance of probabilities norm laid for proof in such cases. 4. We, therefore, affirm judgment and order, under appeal and find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed, leaving parties to bear their respective costs.