ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 28.07.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 104/2016 titled Shavinder Bains vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Complainant Shavinder Bains filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant is registered owner of Maruti Suzuki Swift Desire bearing registration No. HP-15A-1016. It is pleaded that vehicle was duly insured with opposite party No.1 vide policy No. 1116033115P107223580 which was operative w.e.f. 25.09.2015 to 24.09.2016. It is further pleaded that premium to the tune of Rs. 9706/- (Nine thousand seven hundred six) was also paid to opposite party No.1 by the complainant. It is further pleaded that on dated 03.03.2016 vehicle met with accident. It is further pleaded that information of accident was given by the complainant to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that opposite parties also appointed surveyor-cum-loss assessor. It is further pleaded that complainant submitted claim before the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that opposite parties had settled claim at Rs. 208000/- (Two lac eight thousand) as full and final settlement and deposited the same in the bank account of the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant is legally entitled for amount to the tune of Rs. 400500/- (Four lac five hundred) from the opposite parties for damage to his vehicle. It is further pleaded that complainant also served legal notice upon opposite parties. It is further pleaded that opposite parties has committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 192500/- (One lac ninety two thousand five hundred) along-with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 01.05.2016 till realization. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) on account of mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 22000/-(Twenty two thousand) as litigation charges. In addition complainant sought relief against opposite parties No.1 to 3 to the effect that opposite parties No.1 to 3 be directed to lift the accidental vehicle from the workshop of opposite party No.4. Prayer of acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 22000/-(Twenty two thousand) as litigation charges. In addition complainant sought relief against opposite parties No.1 to 3 to the effect that opposite parties No.1 to 3 be directed to lift the accidental vehicle from the workshop of opposite party No.4. Prayer of acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 3 pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no cause of action under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is pleaded that opposite parties No.1 to 3 appointed surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely M/s. G.C. Singh and Associates. It is further pleaded that opposite parties approved claim to the tune of Rs. 208000/- (Two lac eight thousand) as full and final settlement and it is further pleaded that complainant also received the amount without any protest. It is further pleaded that value of salvage of vehicle was assessed to the tune of Rs. 140000/- (One lac forty thousand). It is further pleaded that complainant has also received salvage value to the tune of Rs. 140000/-(One lac forty thousand). It is further pleaded that in total complainant has received Rs. 349000/- (Three lac forty nine thousand) including the salvage value. It is further pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. 5. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 166500/- (One lac sixty six thousand five hundred) along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. In addition learned District Forum further ordered that complainant would handover the salvage of vehicle to the insurance company and complainant would also transfer RC in favour of opposite parties No.1 to 3 within a period of one month. Learned District Forum further ordered that if complainant would not return salvage of vehicle then opposite parties No.1 to 3 would be at liberty to deduct Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) from the amount payable to the complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party No.4 would not charge any amount from complainant on account of rent at the time of taking possession of vehicle by the complainant. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) from the amount payable to the complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party No.4 would not charge any amount from complainant on account of rent at the time of taking possession of vehicle by the complainant. In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite parties No.1 to 3 would pay compensation to the complainant for mental harassment to the tune of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand). In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 would pay Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) towards litigation charges to the complainant. 6. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite parties No. 1 to 3 filed present appeal before State Commission. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of appellants and co-respondent No.1 and we have also perused entire record carefully. None appeared on behalf of corespondent No.2 despite service. Co-respondent No.2 was proceeded ex-parte. 8. Following points arise 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: 9. Complainant filed affidavit Ex.CW-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is registered owner of Maruti Suzuki Swift Desire bearing registration No. HP-15A-1016. There is further recital in the affidavit that vehicle was duly insured with opposite party No.1 w.e.f. 25.09.2015 to 24.09.2016. There is further recital in the affidavit that premium to the tune of Rs. 9706/- (Nine thousand seven hundred six) was also paid to opposite party No.1 by the deponent. There is further recital in the affidavit that IDV of vehicle was Rs. 400500/- (Four lac five hundred). There is further recital in the affidavit that on dated 03.03.2016 vehicle met with accident. There is further recital in the affidavit that vehicle was totally damaged in the accident. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite parties had settled claim at Rs. 208000/- (Two lac eight thousand) as full and final settlement and deposited the same in the bank account of the complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite parties deposited deficient amount. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite parties did not deposit total amount of IDV of vehicle and committed deficiency in service. 10. 208000/- (Two lac eight thousand) as full and final settlement and deposited the same in the bank account of the complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite parties deposited deficient amount. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite parties did not deposit total amount of IDV of vehicle and committed deficiency in service. 10. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Ashok Kumar Negi Senior Divisional Manager in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that on receipt of information regarding accident opposite parties appointed surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely M/s. G.C. Singh and Associates. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite parties approved claim to the tune of Rs. 208000/- (Two lac eight thousand) as full and final settlement. There is further recital in the affidavit that amount was deposited in the payee account of complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant has received amount to the tune of Rs. 208000/- (Two lac eight thousand) as full and final settlement without any protest. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant is not entitled to further claim amount to the tune of Rs. 192500/- (One lac ninety two thousand five hundred). There is further recital in the affidavit that value of salvage was assessed to the tune of Rs. 140000/- (One lac forty thousand) by M/s. Matrix Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors. There is further recital in the affidavit that amount of Rs. 140000/- (One lac forty thousand) i.e. value of salvage was deducted from the total amount of Rs. 349000/- (Three lac forty nine thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. 11. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Gurcharn Singh surveyor-cum-loss assessor in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is Mechanical Engineer and duly licensed and registered insurance surveyor and loss assessor. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent conducted interim survey and submitted reports Annexures R-2, R-3 and R-4. There is further recital in the affidavit that contents of above said reports are true and correct. 12. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Gopal Krishan Director Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is duly licensed surveyor and loss assessor. There is further recital in the affidavit that contents of above said reports are true and correct. 12. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Gopal Krishan Director Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is duly licensed surveyor and loss assessor. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has assessed value of salvage vide Annexure R-5. 13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum has assessed value of salvage of damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) without report of expert and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that learned District Forum has assessed value of salvage to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) without report of expert. It is also proved on record that insurance company has appointed M/s Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess value of salvage of damaged vehicle. M/s Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor has submitted report Annexure R-5. It is proved on record that Gopal Krishan Director Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. has assessed value of salvage and submitted report dated 12.05.2016 Annexure R-5. Gopal Krishan Director Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. has assessed value of salvage to the tune of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) without RC and Rs. 140000/- (One lac forty thousand) with RC. It is proved on record vide document Annexure C-2 that RC of damaged vehicle is in the name of complainant Shavinder Bains. Insurance company also filed affidavit of Gopal Krishan Director Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. in evidence. Complainant did not file any counter surveyor-cum-loss assessor report qua value of salvage of vehicle. Report submitted by Gopal Krishan Director Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. relating to value of salvage of vehicle remained unrebutted on record. It is well settled law that report of surveyor-cum-loss assessor is substantial piece of evidence. See 2017 (1) CPJ 529 NC Ashish Kumar Jaiswal vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. See 2012 (1) CPJ 420 NC H.C Saxena vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. See 2012 (4) CPJ 103 NC National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jyothi Tobacco Traders. See 2017 (1) CPJ 529 NC Ashish Kumar Jaiswal vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. See 2012 (1) CPJ 420 NC H.C Saxena vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. See 2012 (4) CPJ 103 NC National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jyothi Tobacco Traders. See 2009 (3) CPJ 194 NC Nand Kishore Jaiswal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. See 2018 (1) CPR 311 NC Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Jagdish Chand Gupta. Complainant also did not file interrogatories to Gopal Krishan Director Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. who has submitted salvage assessment report Annexure R-5. No reason assigned by complainant as to why complainant did not file interrogatories to Gopal Krishan Director Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. who has submitted salvage assessment report Annexure R-5 placed on record. 14. It is proved on record that claim was settled by opposite parties on total loss basis. It is well settled law that in total loss basis insurance company is legally entitled for the possession of salvage of vehicle or in alternative insurance company is legally entitled to deduct the value of salvage from principal amount. It is proved on record that IDV of vehicle was Rs. 400500/-(Four lac five hundred) as per insurance policy Annexure R-1 placed on record. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company was legally competent to deduct Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) as excess clause. After deducting salvage value of vehicle and after deduction of excess clause amount mentioned in the insurance policy from IDV of vehicle liability of insurance company comes to Rs. 51500/-(Fifty one thousand five hundred) as of today. 15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that insurance company has transmitted amount of Rs. 208000/- (Two lac eight thousand) in the payee account of complainant as full and final settlement and complainant has received the amount as full and final settlement and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company has unilaterally directly sent the amount in the payee account of complainant. Insurance company did not place on record any document relating to full and final settlement agreement duly signed by complainant. Hence plea of insurance that complainant accepted the amount of Rs. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company has unilaterally directly sent the amount in the payee account of complainant. Insurance company did not place on record any document relating to full and final settlement agreement duly signed by complainant. Hence plea of insurance that complainant accepted the amount of Rs. 208000/- (Two lac eight thousand) as full and final settlement is defeated on the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof). It is well settled law that unilateral action on the part of insurance company qua payment would not be deemed to be full and final settlement accepted by complainant. 16. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that order of learned District Forum warrants interference by State Commission because learned District Forum has assessed salvage value of vehicle to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) without obtaining any expert report and it is held that learned District Forum has ignored report of Gopal Krishan Director Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. relating to salvage value of vehicle without any reasonable cause. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. It is ordered that insurance company will pay excess amount to the tune of Rs. 51500/- (Fifty one thousand five hundred) only to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order along-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of institution of complaint till realization if complainant will retain salvage of vehicle. It is further ordered that in alternative if complainant will surrender salvage of vehicle to the insurance company along-with subrogation deed within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order then in that eventuality insurance company will pay amount of salvage value to the tune of Rs. 140000/- (One lac forty thousand) + Rs. 51500/- (Fifty one thousand five hundred) total Rs. 191500/- (One lac ninety one thousand five hundred) to the complainant along-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of institution of complaint till realization. Order of learned District Forum directing opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay Rs. 140000/- (One lac forty thousand) + Rs. 51500/- (Fifty one thousand five hundred) total Rs. 191500/- (One lac ninety one thousand five hundred) to the complainant along-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of institution of complaint till realization. Order of learned District Forum directing opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand) as compensation for mental harassment to the complainant is affirmed. Order of learned District Forum directing opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) as litigation charges to the complainant is also affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Order of learned District Forum is modified to this extent only. Insurance policy Annexure C-1 and Salvage assessment report submitted by Gopal Krishan Director Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. annexure R-5 will form part and parcel of order. 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.