ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 27.02.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.124/2014 title Rai Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited . Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Rai Singh filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of vehicle Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero Camper having registration No. HP-63A-0627. It is pleaded that complainant is unemployed person and is plying vehicle to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment. It is further pleaded that vehicle was duly insured with opposite party and premium to the tune of Rs. 14166/- was paid. It is further pleaded that on dated 11.11.2012 vehicle of complainant met with accident and was badly damaged in the accident. It is further pleaded that on the next day intimation was given to insurance company. It is further pleaded that claim was submitted before opposite party but opposite party repudiated claim vide annexure C-6. It is further pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 423098/- (Four lac twenty three thousand ninety eight) with interest @10% per annum. Complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) as damages. In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) as costs of litigation. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. It is pleaded that claim was repudiated strictly as per law by the opposite party. It is further pleaded that at the time of accident vehicle was carrying unauthorized gratuitous persons and committed fundamental violation of terms and conditions of policy. It is further pleaded that four persons were travelling in the vehicle against capacity of 2+1 only. It is further pleaded that complainant has claimed Rs. 15000/- (Fifteen thousand) as towing charges but as per policy condition complainant is only entitled for Rs. 1500/- (Fifteen hundred) as towing charges. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum allowed complaint and ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. It is further pleaded that complainant has claimed Rs. 15000/- (Fifteen thousand) as towing charges but as per policy condition complainant is only entitled for Rs. 1500/- (Fifteen hundred) as towing charges. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum allowed complaint and ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 129172/- (One lac twenty nine thousand one hundred seventy two) along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment within 45 days from the date of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay a sum of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) on account of harassment and mental agony and learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would also pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) as litigation costs. 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission for enhancement of amount. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Complainant Rai Singh filed affidavit placed on record in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of vehicle Bolero Camper having registration No.HP-63A-0627. There is further recital in the affidavit that on dated 11.11.2012 vehicle met with accident when vehicle was on its way to Sundli. There is further recital in the affidavit that intimation of accident was given to insurance company. There is further recital in the affidavit that amount of Rs. 423098/-(Four lac twenty three thousand ninety eight) be awarded to the complainant. 9. Complainant also filed affidavit of Krishan Singh. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent is working as incharge at Luxmi Stone Crusher Snail Tehsil Jubbal District Shimla H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that on dated 11.11.2012 Shri Khem Singh purchased crusher sand from deponent and at about 6:00PM deponent along-with his son loaded sand in vehicle Bolero Camper bearing registration No. HP-63A-0627. There is further recital in the affidavit that after loading sand vehicle left towards Jubbal side and next day deponent heard that vehicle met with accident. 10. There is further recital in the affidavit that after loading sand vehicle left towards Jubbal side and next day deponent heard that vehicle met with accident. 10. Opposite party filed in evidence affidavit of Rajneesh Kumar Dhiman. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is qualified surveyor and loss assessor. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party hired services of deponent. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has submitted spot survey report dated 27.11.2012 to the opposite party. There is further recital in the affidavit that spot survey report dated 27.11.2012 and annexure of reply are true and nothing has been concealed. 11. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Vinod Kumar surveyor and loss assessor in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is approved and licensed surveyor and loss assessor. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent had conducted final survey of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-63A-0627. There is further recital in the affidavit that loss assessed by deponent was to the tune of Rs. 189729/- (One lac eighty nine thousand seven hundred twenty nine). 12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that amount to the tune of Rs. 129172/-(One lac twenty nine thousand one hundred seventy two) awarded by learned District Forum be enhanced to Rs. 306075/- (Three lac six thousand seventy five) is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that vehicle met with accident on dated 11.11.2012 at about 9:30 PM when vehicle was returning back to Jubbal after delivering goods at Hatkoti and when vehicle was ascending and negotiating curve near Shadi rivulet. It is proved on record that initial spot survey was conducted by Rajneesh Kumar Dhiman surveyor and loss assessor and it is also proved on record that final survey was conducted by Vinod Kumar surveyor and loss assessor. Surveyor namely Rajneesh Kumar Dhiman and surveyor namely Vinod Kumar have filed affidavits in evidence. Affidavit filed by Rajneesh Kumar Dhiman surveyor and loss assessor and affidavit filed by Vinod Kumar surveyor and loss assessor are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve report submitted by Rajneesh Kumar Dhiman surveyor and loss assessor and also there is no reason to disbelieve report submitted by Vinod Kumar surveyor and loss assessor. Complainant did not file any counter surveyor and loss assessor report. There is no reason to disbelieve report submitted by Rajneesh Kumar Dhiman surveyor and loss assessor and also there is no reason to disbelieve report submitted by Vinod Kumar surveyor and loss assessor. Complainant did not file any counter surveyor and loss assessor report. Loss assessment report submitted by Rajneesh Kumar Dhiman and Vinod Kumar remained un-rebutted on record. It is well settled law that surveyor report is reliable and substantial document unless contrary is not proved. See 2017 (1) CPJ 529 NC Ashish Kumar Jaiswal v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company . See 2009 (1) CPC 166 NC Pradeep Kumar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. See 2012 (4) CPJ 103 NC National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jyothi Tobacco Traders. See 2009 (3) CPJ 194 NC Nand Kishore Jaiswal v. National Insurance Company Limited . 13. Insurance company repudiated claim on the ground that four persons including driver were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident despite capacity of three persons including driver. As per report submitted by Rajneesh Kumar Dhiman the occupants at the time of accident were driver and two labourers namely Narain and Khem Bahadur and one minor namely Master Bala Ram aged 9 years. As per report of surveyor and loss assessor labour Khem Bahadur died at the spot in the accident and his postmortem was conducted on dated 12.11.2012. As per spot survey report minor Master Bala Ram sustained simple injuries in the accident and labourer namely Narain sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Vehicle was duly insured with insurance company at the time of accident and premium was also received by insurance company. Insurance company repudiated claim of complainant simple on the ground that four persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident against capacity of three persons. Hon''ble National Commission in case reported in 2006 CPJ 144 NC titled New India Assurance Company Limited v. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak held that in case of overloading beyond licensed capacity claim should be settled on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of admissible claim should be awarded to the complainant. Decision of Hon''ble National Commission was approved by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in case reported in 2010 (4) SCC 536 titled Amlendu Sahi v. OIC. Decision of Hon''ble National Commission was approved by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in case reported in 2010 (4) SCC 536 titled Amlendu Sahi v. OIC. It is well settled law that law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court of India is binding upon all Courts, Tribunals and Commissions as per Article 141 of Constitution of India. 14. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that entire amount of repair bills submitted by complainant should be paid by insurance company is decided accordingly. Complainant did not file affidavits of persons who had issued repair bills. It is well settled law that repairs bills submitted by Maha Luxmi Tractor and Jeep Spares are not per se admissible in evidence. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to enhance the amount awarded by learned District Forum because entire repairs bills submitted by complainant are not proved as per mode mentioned under section 13(4)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is well settled law that documentary evidence should be proved under Consumer Protection Act 1986 strictly as per mode mentioned under section 13(4)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that appellant is entitled to recovery charges to the tune of Rs. 15000/- (Fifteen thousand) is also decided accordingly. Surveyor and loss assessor namely Vinod Kumar had already granted towing charges to the tune of Rs. 2500/- (Two thousand five hundred) to complainant and insurance company did not file any appeal qua enhanced towing charges. 16. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent that order of learned District Forum be affirmed is decided accordingly. It is held that order of learned District Forum is based upon proved facts and is in consonance with law. We are of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on principles of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed and order of learned District Forum is affirmed. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed and order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Spot survey report submitted by Rajneesh Kumar Dhiman annexure OP2 dated 27.11.2012 and survey report submitted by surveyor and loss assessor Vinod Kumar annexure OP3 dated 08.02.2013 will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along-with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.