ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 30.08.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.123/2015 title Sunita Kashyap ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Ltd. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Smt. Sunita filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that husband of complainant was owner in possession of vehicle No.HP-01A-3891. It is pleaded that opposite party issued insurance policy No.3004/1-27620228/00/000 in favour of husband of complainant w.e.f. 03.06.2014 to 02.06.2015. It is pleaded that vehicle was plied for earning livelihood by means of self employment. It is further pleaded that vehicle met with accident on 09.03.2015 at place Tara Devi Shimla. It is pleaded that husband of complainant died on 05.01.2015 at IGMC Shimla and complainant is the legal heir of deceased Prem Chand. It is pleaded that matter was also reported in police station Jutogh. It is further pleaded that claim was submitted to opposite party but opposite party did not settle the claim despite completion of all codal formalities. It is pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 357000/-(Three lac fifty seven thousand) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 100000/-(one lac) as punitive damages for mental agony, harassment, stress and strain. In addition complainant sought additional relief for payment of Rs. 25000/-(Twenty five thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that vehicle was used for commercial purpose. It is pleaded that husband of complainant had sold vehicle to Shri Rakesh Kapoor S/o. Shri Raj Kapoor vide agreement to sell dated 10.3.2013. It is pleaded that Rakesh Kapoor did not have any privity of contract with insurance company. It is further pleaded that vehicle was sold to Rakesh Kapoor w.e.f. 10.03.2013 and transferee was under legal obligation to transfer the insurance policy under Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is further pleaded that information to insurance company was not given promptly and was given after fourteen days. It is pleaded that opposite party appointed investigator Jatinder Dhimarn. It is pleaded that opposite party appointed Shri Ajay Kumar Surveyor who has assessed the loss. It is further pleaded that information to insurance company was not given promptly and was given after fourteen days. It is pleaded that opposite party appointed investigator Jatinder Dhimarn. It is pleaded that opposite party appointed Shri Ajay Kumar Surveyor who has assessed the loss. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service and did not commit any unfair trade practice. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainant also filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 357000/-(Three lac fifty seven thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment within forty five days of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that in addition opposite party would pay a sum of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as punitive compensation on account of harassment and mental agony. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) to complainant as litigation costs. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite party 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 arise 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. Smt. Sunita filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that Prem Chand was owner of the vehicle having registration No.HP-01A-3891. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is legal heir of deceased Prem Chand who died on 05.01.2015 at IGMC Shimla. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle met with accident on 10.03.2015 and report was also lodged in police station Jutogh. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent completed all codal formalities regarding compensation but opposite party did not release the compensation amount. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is widow of deceased Prem Chand. 8. Opposite party filed affidavit of Meenu Manager (Legal) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that claim of complainant was not found payable. 9. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Ajay Kumar Surveyor & Investigator. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is widow of deceased Prem Chand. 8. Opposite party filed affidavit of Meenu Manager (Legal) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that claim of complainant was not found payable. 9. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Ajay Kumar Surveyor & Investigator. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has recommended a claim to the tune of Rs. 363132/-(Three lac sixty three thousand one hundred thirty two) on total loss basis. 10. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Jitender Dhiman. There is recital in affidavit that deponent conducted investigation of the claim of complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that investigation report annexure-OP4 was filed by deponent. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that vehicle involved in the accident stood sold to Shri Rakesh Kapoor vide agreement of sale annexure-OP3 dated 10.03.2013 by Prem Chand deceased husband of complainant and privity of contract between insurance company and deceased Prem Chand stood terminated and no fresh privity of contract executed between Rakesh Kapoor and insurance company and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. As per annexure-OP3 placed on record agreement to sell was executed between Prem Chand deceased husband of complainant and Rakesh Kapoor on dated 10.03.2013 and physical possession of vehicle was given to Rakesh Kapoor on dated 10.03.2013. There is recital in the agreement to sell that vehicle was sold in consideration amount of Rs. 4.00 lac and 1.00 lac was paid as advance by way of cash to the deceased husband of complaint. There is further recital in agreement to sell that remaining sale consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 3.00 lac would be paid by Rakesh Kapoor to the Financer bank in equal monthly installments of Rs. 9000/-(Nine thousand). There is further recital in agreement to sell that after payment of entire sale consideration amount Rakesh Kapoor would acquire the right of transfer of the vehicle as well as permit in the name of Rakesh Kapoor. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that an amount of Rs. 3.00 lac was paid by Rakesh Kapoor to Financer Bank in equal monthly installment of Rs. 9000/-(Nine thousand). There is no evidence on record in order to prove that an amount of Rs. 3.00 lac was paid by Rakesh Kapoor to Financer Bank in equal monthly installment of Rs. 9000/-(Nine thousand). State Commission is of the opinion that agreement to sell executed between Prem Chand and Rakesh Kapoor was not absolute sale of vehicle but was conditional agreement of sale of vehicle. 12. It is held that there are two concepts under law: (1) De jure possession of vehicle (2) De facto possession of vehicle. It is well settled law that De jure possession of vehicle means possession of a person in whose name vehicle is registered as per Section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It is well settled law that De facto possession of vehicle means a person who is in factual possession of the vehicle. 13. As per Section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor the guardian of such minor and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. It is held that Rakesh Kapoor did not fall within definition of owner of vehicle as defined under section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 because as per R.C. placed on record annexure-CI vehicle was registered in the name of deceased Prem Chand at the time of accident. It is further held that Rakesh Kapoor also did not fall within the definition of Hire-Purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation as defined under section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It is held that as per Section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 holder of agreement to sell does not fall within definition of owner of vehicle. See AIR 2018 Apex Court 983 Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and other (Full bench comprised of three judges). See AIR 2018 Allahabad 128 Amar Nath Chaubey vs. State of U.P. and others. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that on total loss basis insurance company is entitled to the salvage of vehicle is decided accordingly. See AIR 2018 Allahabad 128 Amar Nath Chaubey vs. State of U.P. and others. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that on total loss basis insurance company is entitled to the salvage of vehicle is decided accordingly. Compensation was granted by learned District Forum on total loss basis and it is well settled law that in total loss cases insurance company is legally entitled for salvage of the vehicle. See 2005 (1) CPJ 93 NC Shanker Lal vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned District Forum is in accordance with law and is in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company is legally entitled for the salvage of vehicle in total loss basis. State Commission is of the opinion that report submitted by surveyor cum loss assessor appointed by insurance company is substantive piece of evidence. See 2009 (3) CPJ 194 NC Nand Kishore Jaiswal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. See 2012 (4) CPJ 103 NC National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jyothi Tobacco Traders. See 2012 (1) CPJ 420 NC H.C Saxena vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 16. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. It is ordered that salvage of vehicle will be returned by complainant to insurance company within one month after receipt of certified copy of order. It is further ordered that complainant will execute subrogation deed of salvage in favour of Insurance Company. It is further ordered that in alternative insurance company will be at liberty to deduct the salvage value of the vehicle from principal amount i.e. Rs. 357000/-(Three lac fifty seven thousand). It is further ordered that insurance company will comply order within one month after receipt of certified copy of order of State Commission. Report of surveyor cum loss assessor annexure-OP5 and R.C. annexure-C1 shall form part and parcel of order. Order of learned District Forum is modified to this extent only. 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. Order of learned District Forum is modified to this extent only. 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.