ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 28.03.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.02/2013 titled Saneh Prabha vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Smt. Saneh Prabha filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of vehicle No.HP-25A-2172. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured with opposite parties. It is pleaded that vehicle met with an accident at kharai Dank (Roghi) on 13.07.2005. It is further pleaded that FIR No.58 was lodged in police station Reckong Peo on dated 13.07.2005. It is pleaded that damaged claim was submitted before opposite parties after completing all codal formalities. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 376000/-(Three lac seventy six thousand) alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from the date of accident. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that insurance policy w.e.f. 10.09.2004 to 09.09.2005 was issued by insurance company. It is pleaded that IDV value of the vehicle was Rs. 376000/- (Three lac seventy six thousand). It is further pleaded that vehicle was hypothecated with H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Reckong Peo. It is pleaded that driver was legally competent to drive LMV vehicle w.e.f. 24.09.2001 to 23.09.2004. It is further pleaded that vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further pleaded that insurance company appointed surveyor cum loss assessor namely Shri Mohinder K. Sharma. It is pleaded that surveyor cum loss assessor recommended payment to the tune of Rs. 295500/-(Two lac ninety five thousand five hundred) to complainant in toto. It is pleaded that insurance company also appointed Shri Ram Mohan Negi to investigate the matter and submit the repot. It is further pleaded that two unauthorized and gratuitous passengers were travelling in goods vehicle at the time of accident. It is 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. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. It is 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. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 376000/-(Three lac seventy six thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment within forty five days from the date of order. In addition learned District Forum ordered insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as punitive damages on account of mental agony and harassment. In addition learned District Forum ordered that insurance company would 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 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: 7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that persons travelling in vehicle were not gratuitous passengers. There is recital in affidavit that persons were carrying vegetable crops in the vehicle to market. There is further recital in affidavit that driver Ashok Kumar was holding valid driving licence w.e.f. 2004 to 13.01.2007. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has not violated any terms & conditions of insurance policy and deponent is entitled for the damage claim from opposite parties. State Commission has perusal annexures-C1 to C4 filed by complainant carefully. 8. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Prem Nath Bodh Senior Divisional Manager in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was insured with opposite parties w.e.f. 10.09.2004 to 09.09.2005. There is recital in affidavit that IDV value of vehicle was Rs. 376000/-(Three lac seventy six thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was hypothecated with H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. There is recital in affidavit that IDV value of vehicle was Rs. 376000/-(Three lac seventy six thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was hypothecated with H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. There is recital in affidavit that driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. There is further recital in affidavit that insurance company appointed surveyor cum loss assessor and surveyor cum loss assessor has assessed loss of vehicle to the tune of Rs. 295500/-(Two lac ninety five thousand five hundred). 9. Opposite parties also filed affidavit of Shri Ram Mohan Negi Administrative Officer. There is recital in affidavit that on dated 03.02.2006 deponent inspected the vehicle No.HP-25A-2172 in the presence of surveyor cum loss assessor namely Mohinder K. Sharma and found that condition of vehicle was beyond repair. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has submitted the report in the office of opposite parties. 10. Opposite parties also filed affidavit of Shri Mohinder K. Sharma surveyor cum loss assessor in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is approved surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has inspected the vehicle and assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 295500/-(Two lac ninety five thousand five hundred) after deduction of salvage value of vehicle. 11. Opposite parties also filed affidavit of Shri Rajneesh Kumar Dhiman surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent inspected the vehicle No.HP-25A-2172 and submitted the report to opposite parties. State Commission has perused annexures-R1 to R8 filed by opposite parties carefully. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the report Annexure-A submitted by Shri Dinesh Kumar. There is specific recital in annexure-A that Dinesh Kumar was appointed by insurance company to verify the driving licence of Ashok Kumar. Dinesh Kumar has submitted the report that HTV driving licence Vide No.1116/SML/04 was issued in favour of Ashok Kumar which was valid w.e.f. 14.01.2004 to 13.01.2007. It is proved on record that driver and two persons died in the accident. Dinesh Kumar has submitted the report that HTV driving licence Vide No.1116/SML/04 was issued in favour of Ashok Kumar which was valid w.e.f. 14.01.2004 to 13.01.2007. It is proved on record that driver and two persons died in the accident. Report submitted by Dinesh Kumar annexure-A remained unrebutted on record. It is held a person holding HTV driving licence is legally competent to drive LMV vehicle. In view of the above stated facts it is held the driver was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that two unauthorized persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident as gratuitous passenger and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that persons travelling in vehicle at the time of accident have also died. Smt. Saneh Prabha has specifically mentioned in the affidavit that two persons have hired vehicle for carrying their vegetable crops to market. Affidavit of Smt. Saneh Prabha to this effect remained unrebutted on record. Plea of insurance company that two persons were travelling as gratuitous passengers in vehicle at the time of accident is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum has granted excessive interest to the complainant @ 9% per annum and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that reasonable interest @ 9% per annum has been granted by learned District Forum and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in interest rate ordered by learned District Forum. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that vehicle was hypothecated with H.P. State Co-operative Bank Reckong Peo and H.P. State Co-operative Bank Reckong Peo has first right over the insured amount and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused annexure-R4. It is proved on record that in the insurance policy name of insured has been mentioned as Smt. Saneh Prabha. State Commission is of the opinion that privity of contract was executed between Saneh Prabha and insurance company. State Commission has carefully perused annexure-R4. It is proved on record that in the insurance policy name of insured has been mentioned as Smt. Saneh Prabha. State Commission is of the opinion that privity of contract was executed between Saneh Prabha and insurance company. State Commission is of the opinion that H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. has separate cause of action against Smt. Saneh Prabha if any relating to recovery of loan amount. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to club different cause of actions of H.P. State Co-operative Bank Reckong Peo in present consumer complaint. H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. has not filed any application before learned District Forum or State Commission to implead as intervener in the present consumer complaint and it is well settled law that complainant is the dominus litis of its consumer complaint. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum has not deducted salvage value of the vehicle as assessed by surveyor cum loss assessor and has not granted compensation as per loss recommended by surveyor cum loss assessor and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that insurance company has appointed surveyor cum loss assessor namely Mr. Mohinder K. Sharma. It is also proved on record that Mr. Mohinder K. Sharma has submitted surveyor cum loss assessor report annexure-R8 placed on record. Surveyor cum loss assessor has specifically mentioned in the report that vehicle was proceeding on way to Tapri from Rogi and when vehicle reached at the spot of accident suddenly road subsided and vehicle got unbalanced and fell into gorge about 400 meters below and was badly damaged. Surveyor cum loss assessor has specifically mentioned in his report that three persons travelling at the time of accident including driver had died in the accident. Surveyor cum loss assessor has recommended the payment to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 295500/-(Two lac ninety five thousand five hundred). Report submitted by Surveyor cum loss assessor namely Mohinder K. Sharma remained unrebutted on record. Complainant did not file any counter surveyor report. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that surveyor cum loss assessor has any hostile animus against complainant at any point of time. 295500/-(Two lac ninety five thousand five hundred). Report submitted by Surveyor cum loss assessor namely Mohinder K. Sharma remained unrebutted on record. Complainant did not file any counter surveyor report. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that surveyor cum loss assessor has any hostile animus against complainant at any point of time. It is well settled law that surveyor cum loss assessor report is a substantial piece of evidence. See 2012 (1) CPJ 420 NC H.C Saxena vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 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. 17. 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. Complainant is legally entitled for compensation as recommended by surveyor cum loss assessor. Complainant did not place on record any counter surveyor report. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Vehicle damaged amount ordered by learned District Forum to the tune of Rs. 376000/-(Three lac seventy six thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment is reduced to Rs. 295500/-(Two lac ninety five thousand five hundred) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party would pay a sum of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as punitive compensation to complainant on account of harassment and mental agony is affirmed. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party would pay an amount of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) as litigation costs to complainant is also affirmed. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. Report of surveyor cum loss assessor namely Shri Mohinder K. Sharma annexure-R8 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. 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.