ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 09.03.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 306/2013 title Hardyal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Shri Hardyal filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of vehicle registration No. HP10-A-4195 Model Maruti 800. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No. 35101031116130527574 w.e.f. 28.12.2011 to 27.12.2012. It is pleaded that on dated 08.06.2012 at about 1.00 PM during existence of insurance policy said vehicle met with an accident near Kufri Shimla and rolled down from the road while returning from Shimla. It is pleaded that owner of the vehicle and occupants of the vehicle sustained injuries. It is pleaded that FIR Annexure-P3 was registered in police station. It is pleaded that factum of accident was intimated to the opposite party and surveyor cum loss assessor was appointed by the opposite party. It is further pleaded that complainant carried out repair at workshop of M/s. Goel Motors Pvt. Limited Taradevi Shimla and also paid towing charges to the tune of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand). It is further pleaded that complainant spent a sum of Rs. 230000/-(Two lac thirty thousand) upon repair of vehicle and also paid Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) as parking fee. It is pleaded that claim was filed before the opposite party and legal notice was also issued to opposite party for the settlement of claim. It is further pleaded that opposite party repudiated the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief to the tune of Rs. 235000/-(Two lac thirty five thousand) as repair of vehicle plus transportation charges alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. In addition complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 15000/-(Fifteen thousand). In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) as mental agony harassment and pain. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that present complaint filed by complainant with malafide intention. It is pleaded that complainant did not approach learned District Forum with clean hands and suppressed material facts from the Forum. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint due to his own acts conduct deeds commissions and acquiescence. It is pleaded that complainant did not approach learned District Forum with clean hands and suppressed material facts from the Forum. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint due to his own acts conduct deeds commissions and acquiescence. It is further pleaded that complainant intimated loss of vehicle to insurance company and thereafter insurance company deployed approved surveyor cum loss assessor who submitted the damage report. It is pleaded that opposite party did not reject nor pass the claim due to non deposit of correct driving licence. It is pleaded that after the accident insured filed the claim and mentioned the name of driver as Majid. It is pleaded that Majid was not holding proper driving licence at the time of accident and insurance company is justified for not paying claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 124424/-(One lac twenty four thousand four hundred twenty four) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till the date of actual payment within 45 days. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay punitive compensation of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) on account of harassment and mental agony. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party will pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) as litigation costs. Feeling aggrieved against 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 filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of vehicle having registration No. HP-10A-4195 Model Maruti 800. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No. 35101031116130527 -574 w.e.f. 28.12.2011 to 27.12.2012. There is further recital in affidavit that on dated 08.06.2011 at about 1.00 PM vehicle met with an accident near Kufri and went of the road and rolled down from the road while returning from Shimla. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No. 35101031116130527 -574 w.e.f. 28.12.2011 to 27.12.2012. There is further recital in affidavit that on dated 08.06.2011 at about 1.00 PM vehicle met with an accident near Kufri and went of the road and rolled down from the road while returning from Shimla. There is further recital in affidavit that factum of accident was intimated to the office of opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party appointed surveyor cum loss assessor. 8. Complainant also filed affidavit of Majid Khan son of Roshan Deen. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is holding LMV driving licence No. 1256/03 issued by competent registering authority Shimla on dated 09.10.2003. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent was driving the vehicle of Shri Hardyal complainant on dated 08.06.2012. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle met with accident near Kufri Shimla due to glaring flash lights of a vehicle in the night. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle rolled down from the road and occupants of the vehicle sustained injuries. There is further recital in affidavit that case under section 279 & 333 of IPC was registered. There is further recital in affidavit that original driving licence of deponent was took into possession by investigation agency and was tagged with the case file titled as State of H.P. vs. Majid Khan which is pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 2 Shimla H.P. There is recital in affidavit that name of deponent has been wrongly mentioned as Manjeet in the driving licence instead of Majid. There is further recital in affidavit that Manjeet and Majid are one and the same person. 9. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Vivek Suman posted as A.O (Legal) NIC Divisional office Himland Hotel Circular Road Shimla. There is recital in affidavit that complainant did not approach learned District Forum with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant is estopped to file present complaint on account of own act conduct deeds commissions and acquiescence. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party appointed Shri Vijay Kumar Berry IRDA approved surveyor cum loss assessor who submitted damage report of the vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant is estopped to file present complaint on account of own act conduct deeds commissions and acquiescence. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party appointed Shri Vijay Kumar Berry IRDA approved surveyor cum loss assessor who submitted damage report of the vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has not deposited the relevant documents. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party has not rejected nor approved the claim due to non deposit of documents. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant mentioned the name of driver as Majid instead of Manjeet. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that at the time of accident five persons were travelling in the vehicle as per FIR Annexure-P3 placed on record and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that FIR is not substantive piece of evidence. It is also well settled law that proceedings before Consumer Forums are quasi judicial proceedings. It is also well settled law that under section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 no statement made by any person to police official in course of investigation would be used as evidence. It is well settled law that statement recorded by police official during investigation could be used by the accused and with the permission of court by prosecution to contradict the witness in the manner provided by section 145 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the present case opposite party did not contradict the FIR in the manner provided by section 145 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Hence adverse inference is drawn against the opposite party on the principle of natural justice and in the ends of justice. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that vehicle was driven by Majid at the time of accident and vehicle was not driven by Manjeet and on this ground appeal be allowed is also decided accordingly. Shri Majid son of Roshan Deen has filed affidavit and there is recital in affidavit that deponent was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. There is further recital in affidavit that Manjeet and Majid are one and the same person. Affidavit filed by Majid Khan remained unrebutted on record. Shri Majid son of Roshan Deen has filed affidavit and there is recital in affidavit that deponent was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. There is further recital in affidavit that Manjeet and Majid are one and the same person. Affidavit filed by Majid Khan remained unrebutted on record. Insurance company did not file any counter affidavit of any independent person in order to prove that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by any other person. State Commission is of the opinion that there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by Majid Khan placed on record. Affidavit filed by Majid Khan is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission. Even father name of Majid Khan & Manjeet is same as per record placed on record. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum has granted interest @ 9% on higher side and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that rate of interest @ 9% per annum is a reasonable rate of interest granted by learned District Forum. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in the interest rate granted by learned District Forum. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that complainant did not submit the documents to the insurance company and till date insurance company did not allow or reject the claim filed by complaint and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that insurance company appointed surveyor cum loss assessor Shri Vijay Kumar Berry to investigate the matter and to submit the report and he has submitted the report submitted on record. It is also proved on record that licence was issued to Vijay Kumar Surveyor cum loss assessor under section 64 UM of Insurance Act 1938. It is proved on record that Vijay Kumar Berry has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 124424/-(One lac twenty four thousand four hundred twenty four). Insurance company did not file affidavit of Shri Vijay Kumar Berry. It is proved on record that Vijay Kumar Berry has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 124424/-(One lac twenty four thousand four hundred twenty four). Insurance company did not file affidavit of Shri Vijay Kumar Berry. It is well settled law that report of surveyor cum loss assessor appointed by insurance company is an important document and it is also well settled law that report of surveyor cum loss assessor cannot be set aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary. See 2009 (1) CPC 166 NC title Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. See 2010 (III) CPJ 401 NC title New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Chhabra. See 2010 (1) CPC 696 NC title Champa Lal Verma vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. See 2012 (1) CPJ 420 NC title H.C. Saxena vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. See 2012 (IV) CPJ 103 NC title National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jyothi Tobacco Trade See 2009 (III) CPJ 194 NC title Nand Kishore Jaiswal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd . In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 306/2013 title Hardyal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. is affirmed. Damaged report submitted by Vijay Kumar Berry Surveyor cum loss assessor placed on record 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.