ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 26.10.2016 passed by Learned District Forum Shimla in consumer complaint No.96/2014 title Tara Devi v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & others. Brief facts of Case: 2. Smt. Tara Devi filed consumer complaint pleaded therein that vehicle No.HP-51B (Temp) 8343 was insured with the opposite parties w.e.f. 19.05.2012 to 18.05.2013. It is pleaded that premium was also paid to the opposite parties by the complainant. It is further pleaded that vehicle No.HP-51B (Temp) 8343 was duly insured with the opposite parties in consideration amount of Rs. 501030/-(Five lac one thousand thirty). It is pleaded that vehicle met with road side accident on 21.05.2012 and vehicle was damaged. It is further pleaded that factum of accident was intimated to police station Rampur vide First Information Report No.109/2012 dated 21.05.2013. It is further pleaded that factum of accident was also intimated to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that opposite parties appointed spot surveyor who visited the spot and submitted report. It is further pleaded that opposite parties illegally repudiated the claim of complainant. Complainant sought relief of Rs. 501030/-(Five lac one thousand thirty) alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 12000/-(Twelve thousand) as parking charges. In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand) as damages for mental torture. In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs. 15000/- (Fifteen thousand) as charges of recovery van. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs. 11000/-(Eleven thousand) as litigation costs. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant is not consumer. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured on IDV basis in consideration amount of Rs. 501030/-(Five lac one thousand thirty) w.e.f. 28.05.2012 to 27.05.2013. It is pleaded that complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum and did not approach the Forum with clean hands. It is pleaded that Sanjeev Kumar who was owner of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. It is pleaded that FIR was lodged by the father of insured and husband of the complainant. It is pleaded that Sanjeev Kumar who was owner of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. It is pleaded that FIR was lodged by the father of insured and husband of the complainant. It is pleaded that Shri Manoj Kukreja was appointed as surveyor who submitted the report and recommended a sum of Rs. 2,36,044.83. It is also pleaded that thereafter opposite parties also appointed Shri Abhishek Mudgil to investigate the matter and he submitted the report. It is pleaded that opposite party repudiated the claim in accordance with law. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Complainant also filed rejoinder and reasserted allegation mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 236045/-(Two lac thirty six thousand forty five) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment within 45 days. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as punitive compensation. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand). Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. State Commission decided to dispose of appeal on merits. None appeared on behalf of respondents at the time of final arguments. State Commission heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and perused the entire record carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Tara Devi filed affidavit by way of evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is only legal heir of owner of vehicle Bolero Pick-UP bearing registration Temp. No.HP-51B (Temp.) 8343. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was duly insured with the opposite parties at the time of accident. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant also issued legal notice to the opposite party No.1 through registered post on dated 01.02.2014. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties have illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim of complainant. 8. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant also issued legal notice to the opposite party No.1 through registered post on dated 01.02.2014. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties have illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim of complainant. 8. Opposite parties also filed affidavit of Meenu Sharma Manager (Legal) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is working as Manager Legal in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and is conversant with the facts of case. There is further recital in affidavit that claim of complainant was repudiated by opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 03.08.2012 Annexure-OP3. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Manoj Kukreja by way of evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is duly authorized to conduct survey. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has recommended a sum of Rs. 236044.83 minus 10761.70. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that vehicle in question was transport vehicle and driver was having only LMV NT licence and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record vide Annexure-C3 that class of vehicle was LMV and unladen weight of vehicle was 1701 KG. As per Section 2 (21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms. It is held that vehicle involved in accident falls within the definition of LMV vehicle and it is held that driver having LMV licence was legally competent to drive LMV vehicle. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that in the First Information Report father of the insured namely Shri Babu Ram has stated that his deceased son was not holding driving licence and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that FIR is not substantive piece of evidence. It is also well settled law that FIR can be used for a purpose of corroboration and contradictions purpose only as per section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as provided under section 145 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. It is well settled law that FIR is not substantive piece of evidence. It is also well settled law that FIR can be used for a purpose of corroboration and contradictions purpose only as per section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as provided under section 145 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the present case insurance company did not examine author of FIR. In view of above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice to rely the contents of FIR. Even in repudiation letter placed on record it is no ground of insurance company that vehicle involved in accident was driven by Sanjeev Kumar. Claim was repudiated by insurance company on the ground that Papu Ram was not holding valid driving licence. Even surveyor namely Manoj Kukreja has specifically mentioned in his survey report Annexure-OP4 that driver of vehicle was Papu Ram. Surveyor did not mention that vehicle at the time of accident was driven by Sanjeev Kumar. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that appellant is legally entitled to salvage costs to the tune of Rs. 10761/-(Ten thousand seven hundred sixty one) and also entitled to deduction of Rs. 1500/- (One thousand five hundred) on account of excess clause is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the report of surveyor Manoj Kukreja Annexure-OP4. Surveyor has assessed the expected salvage costs to the tune of Rs. 10761.70. It is held that insurance company is legally entitled to salvage costs as assessed by Shri Manoj Kukreja vide Annexure-OP4. It is also held that insurance company is also entitled to Rs. 1500/-(One thousand five hundred) as per excess clause mentioned in the insurance policy. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that amount would be paid to the financer by the insurance company and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that Financer did not appear before learned District Forum despite service and he was proceeded ex-parte. It is held that Financer did not plead any claim before learned District Forum. It is held that insurance company cannot be allowed to plead the case of Financer before State Commission. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that learned District Forum has granted Rs. It is held that Financer did not plead any claim before learned District Forum. It is held that insurance company cannot be allowed to plead the case of Financer before State Commission. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that learned District Forum has granted Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) as punitive compensation on higher side is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that learned District Forum has granted reasonable punitive compensation strictly as per proof facts on records. In view of above stated facts, point No.1 is answered partly in yes and partly in no. Point No.2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. It is held that appellants/insurance company will be legally entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 10761/-(Ten thousand seven hundred sixty one) on account of salvage and it is held that insurance company will be legally entitled to deduct Rs. 1500/-(One thousand five hundred) on account of excess clause as per insurance policy from the total amount awarded by learned District Forum. Order of learned District Forum is partially modified to this extent only. Repudiation order Annexure-OP3 issued by insurance company will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith 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.