ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 02.09.2016 passed by Learned District Forum Chamba in consumer complaint No. 16/2016 title Abdul Mazid v. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd . Brief facts of Case: 2. Shri Abdul Mazid complainant filed consumer complaint pleaded therein that complainant had insured his vehicle bearing No.HP-73-4228 with the opposite party. It is pleaded that vehicle met with an accident on 12.12.2014 and sustained total loss during the operation of insurance policy near place Devikothi Tehsil Churah District Chamba. It is pleaded that complainant intimated the factum of accident to opposite party and rapat No. 21 dated 13.12.2014 was also registered at police station Tissa Tehsil Churah District Chamba. It is further pleaded that complainant submitted the claim before the opposite party and it is pleaded that complainant also served registered legal notice on dated 30.10.2015 upon opposite party. It is pleaded that complainant purchased the vehicle and financed the vehicle from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Ltd. in order to earn his livelihood. Complainant sought relief of Rs. 502731/-(Five lac two thousand seven hundred thirty one) on the basis of total loss of vehicle. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) along-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as mental agony and harassment and complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 50000/-(Five thousand) as litigation costs. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant did not submit the requisite documents despite reminder. It is further pleaded that complainant has suppressed material facts and did not approach the Forum with clean hands. It is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is further pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party because vehicle was hypothecate with Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Ltd. as per registration certificate relied by the complainant. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 489113/- (Four lac eighty nine thousand one hundred thirteen) minus excess clause as applicable along-with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay an amount of Rs. 4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 489113/- (Four lac eighty nine thousand one hundred thirteen) minus excess clause as applicable along-with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay an amount of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) to the complainant on account of mental harassment. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay Rs. 3000/- towards litigation charges. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Complainant Abdul Mazid filed affidavit Ex.CW1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of vehicle bearing No.HP-73-4228 which was duly insured with the opposite party w.e.f. 30.12.2013 to 29.12.2014 vide policy No. 3001/86398710/00/000. There is further recital in affidavit that accident took placed on 12.12.2014 at place Devikothi Tehsil Churah District Chamba during the operation of insurance policy. There is further recital in affidavit that total loss was caused to the vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent intimated the factum of accident to police official and rapat No. 21 dated 13.12.2014 was registered at police station Tissa Tehsil Churah. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent submitted his claim to opposite party-all required documents and observed all the codal formalities. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent served legal notice on 30.10.2015 upon opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has purchased the vehicle by taking financial assistance from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Ltd. to earn his livelihood. 8. Opposite party did not file any affidavit in support of evidence and opposite party simply relied upon Annexure-OP1 to Annexure-OP7 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party. Statement of learned Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party was recorded by learned District Forum on dated 11.08.2016. 9. 8. Opposite party did not file any affidavit in support of evidence and opposite party simply relied upon Annexure-OP1 to Annexure-OP7 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party. Statement of learned Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party was recorded by learned District Forum on dated 11.08.2016. 9. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that codal formalities were not complied by the complainant despite letter issued by the insurance company on dated 21.12.2014, 21.04.2015 and 05.06.2015 and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. In the present case insurance company did not file any affidavit in evidence on behalf of insurance company under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of consumer dispute. On the contrary affidavit filed by complainant in evidence under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 Ex.CW1 remained un-rebutted on record. In view of the fact that insurance company did not file any counter affidavit in evidence under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 it is not expedient in the ends of justice to dismiss the complaint of complainant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of insurance company on dated 11.08.2016 has given written statement that he tender in evidence only Annexure-OP1 to OP7 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party and did not adduce any evidence by way of affidavit for adjudication of consumer dispute under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum did not pass any order relating to salvage in favour of insurance company despite total loss and on this ground appeal be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that learned District Forum has granted claim to the complainant on the basis of total loss. It is well settled law that in total loss of vehicle insurance company is legally entitled for the salvage of vehicle. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum did not order transfer of registration certificate in favour of insurance company or did not order the cancellation of registration certificate in favour of complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is also accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum did not order transfer of registration certificate in favour of insurance company or did not order the cancellation of registration certificate in favour of complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is also accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that in the case of total loss of vehicle owner of the vehicle is under legal obligation to transfer registration certificate in the name of insurance company and to get the registration of vehicle cancelled in his name. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that vehicle was financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Ltd. and vehicle was hypothecate with the finance company and finance company has first right over the insured amount and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. In the present case finance company did not file any application to implead as co-party in the present consumer complaint. It is well settled law that insurance company cannot plead the case of finance company. Finance company did not execute any privity of contract with insurance company. On the contrary privity of contract was executed between complainant and insurance company. Finance company has an alternative remedy to recover the amount in accordance with law against the complainant. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered partly in yes and partly in no. Point No. 2: Final Order 13. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is partly allowed and it is ordered that insurance company would be entitled to salvage of vehicle. It is also ordered that complainant would hand over the salvage of vehicle to insurance company within one month after receipt of copy of order. It is also ordered that complainant will transfer registration certificate of vehicle in the name of insurance company within one month after receipt of copy of this order. Order of learned District Forum to pay Rs. 489113/- (Four lac eighty nine thousand one hundred thirteen) minus excess clause as applicable along with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment is affirmed. Order of learned District Forum that insurance company would pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant on account of mental harassment is also affirmed. 489113/- (Four lac eighty nine thousand one hundred thirteen) minus excess clause as applicable along with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment is affirmed. Order of learned District Forum that insurance company would pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant on account of mental harassment is also affirmed. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party would pay an amount of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand) as litigation costs to complainant is also affirmed. Statement of learned Advocate Shri Darpan Vaid appeared on behalf of insurance company dated 11.08.2016 will form part and parcel of order. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. 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.