ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 05.05.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.237/2014 titled Indra Devi & Ors. vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Smt. Indra Devi & Ors. filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that vehicle No.HP-63B-1562 Alto car was insured with insurance company w.e.f. 15.11.2012 to 14.11.2013 and premium was paid to insurance company. It is further pleaded that on 18.03.2013 at about 4.30 P.M at place Nagrot Tehsil Kumarsain District Shimla when vehicle was enrouted to Nagrot from Narkanda then due to slippery surface vehicle skidded and accident occurred. It is pleaded that FIR No.29/2013 was also recorded. It is pleaded that Sh. Gian Chand Dogra who was registered owner of the vehicle died in the accident. It is pleaded that at the time of accident four persons were travelling in the vehicle 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that at the time of accident driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. It is further pleaded that opposite party is not under legal obligation to indemnify the complainants. It is pleaded that consumer complaint involved complicated questions of fact and law and complainants be relegated to civil court. It is pleaded that FIR No.29/2013 was lodged at the instance of Shri Amar Chand. It is pleaded that there is positive recital in FIR that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by Shri Gian Chand. It is further pleaded that police officials have submitted final investigation report under section 173 of Cr.P.C , 1973and final investigation report was submitted by police agency in collusion with the complainants contrary to facts. It is pleaded that in final investigation report it has wrongly been mentioned that vehicle was driven by Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil at the time of accident. It is pleaded that in the claim form Smt. Indra Devi has mentioned in a positive manner that at the time of accident car was parked in courtyard and as soon as Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil came out of the vehicle vehicle started skidding and went of the road. It is pleaded that insurance company did not commit any deficiency in service. It is pleaded that insurance company did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainants filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum ordered insurance company to pay Rs. 200000/-(Two lac) to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till payment within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. In addition learned District Forum ordered that insurance company would pay an amount of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) to complainants as compensation for harassment and mental agony. In addition learned District Forum ordered insurance company to pay an amount 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 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 Indra Devi filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle No.HP-63B 1562 was duly insured with insurance company at the time of accident. There is recital in affidavit that accident took place on 18.03.2018 at about 4.30 P.M at Nagrot Tehsil Kumarsain and District Shimla when said vehicle was enrouted to Nagrot from Narkanda. There is recital in affidavit that FIR No.29/2013 dated 18.03.2013 was also recorded in police station. There is recital in affidavit that at the time accident Shri Gian Chand, late Shri Laiq Ram, Madan Lal and Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil were travelling in the vehicle. There is recital in affidavit that at the time of accident Shri Gian Chand and Laiq Ram died and Madan Lal sustained severe injuries. There is recital in affidavit that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil. There is recital in affidavit that insurance company did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. 8. Complainant filed affidavit of Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil. There is recital in affidavit that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil. There is recital in affidavit that insurance company did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. 8. Complainant filed affidavit of Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil. There is recital in affidavit that deponent was driving the vehicle No.HP-63B 1562 from Narkanda to Nagrot and accident took place on dated 18.03.2013 at about 4.30 P.M. There is recital in affidavit that accident was caused due to skidding of vehicle from the road. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle fell into deep gorge. There is further recital in affidavit that in the accident Shri Gian Chand and Sh. Laiq Ram died. There is recital in affidavit that Sh. Madan Lal sustained severe injuries in the accident. There is recital in affidavit that name of father of deponent has been inadvertently mentioned as Jeevan Dass in the driving licence. There is further recital in affidavit that father''s name of deponent is Shri Joban Dass. State Commission has perused all the annexures filed by complainants carefully. 9. Insurance Company filed affidavit of Shri Vivek Suman working as Administrative officer Legal. There is recital in affidavit that version filed on behalf of insurance company alongwith annexures OP1 to OP11 be read in evidence as part and parcel of affidavit. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite party. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that as per FIR lodged vehicle was driven by Sh. Gian Chand at the time of accident and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that FIR is not substantial piece of evidence. It is well settled law that as per section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 statement given to police officials could not be used in evidence for any purpose except to contradict the witness in the manner provided under section 145 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Insurance company did not sent any interrogatories to Sh. Amar Chand eye witness at whose instance FIR was recorded in order to prove contents of FIR. Hence adverse inference is drawn against insurance. 11. Insurance company did not sent any interrogatories to Sh. Amar Chand eye witness at whose instance FIR was recorded in order to prove contents of FIR. Hence adverse inference is drawn against insurance. 11. Insurance company did not file affidavit of any eye witness who was present at the time of accident in order to prove that at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by deceased Gian Chand. Affidavit filed by Shri Vivek Suman on behalf of insurance company is based upon derived knowledge only because Sh. Vivek Suman was not present at the scene of accident when accident of vehicle took place. On the contrary Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil is eye witness of the accident as he was travelling in the vehicle himself at the time of accident. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that name of driver was changed from Shri Gian Chand Dogra to Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil by police official in final report submitted under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in collusion with complainants and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. Insurance company did not file interrogatories to investigating officer who has submitted final investigation report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence adverse inference is drawn against the insurance company for non filing interrogatories to police official who has submitted final investigation report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that as per claim form submitted by Smt. Indra Devi accident of vehicle was caused when vehicle was stopped upon slide slope and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. Insurance company did not file any interrogatories to Indra Devi who had submitted claim form before insurance company. No reason assigned by insurance company as to why insurance company did not file any interrogatories to Indra Devi to contradict the fact mentioned in the claim form. Adverse inference is drawn against insurance company for non filing interrogatories to Smt. Indra Devi as per provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 14. No reason assigned by insurance company as to why insurance company did not file any interrogatories to Indra Devi to contradict the fact mentioned in the claim form. Adverse inference is drawn against insurance company for non filing interrogatories to Smt. Indra Devi as per provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that in the driving licence father''s name of Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil has been shown as Jeevan Dass and in MLC, birth certificate, family register father''s name of Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil has been mentioned as Sh. Joban Dass and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the aforesaid documents. In aforesaid documents address has been mentioned as same. Insurance company did not file affidavit of any person on record in order to prove that Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil S/o. Jeevan Dass and Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil S/o. Sh. Joban Dass are two different persons. Onus was upon insurance company to prove that Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil S/o. Jeevan Dass and Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil S/o. Joban Dass are entirely two different persons. Plea of insurance company that Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil S/o. Jeevan Dass and Shri Jai Gopal Rajta @ Sunil S/o. Sh. Joban Dass are two different persons is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that excessive rate of interest to the tune of 9% per annum has been granted by learned District Forum and on this ground appeal of insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum has granted reasonable rate of interest and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to reduce interest rate. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complicated facts are involved in the consumer complaint and complainants be relegated to civil court for adjudication of matter is decided accordingly. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complicated facts are involved in the consumer complaint and complainants be relegated to civil court for adjudication of matter is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to relegate the complainants who are L.R''s of deceased Gian Chand Dogra to civil court. Age of Smt. Indra Devi widow of complainant is above fifty years as of today. State Commission is of the opinion that present consumer complaint could be disposed of in summary manner under Consumer Protection Act 1986 properly and effectively. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainants 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 it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum and it is held that order of learned District Forum is in consonance with law and is in consonance with proved facts. 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 dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. 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.