ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 09.03.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.36/2016 titled Tilak Raj vs. Pathankot Vehicleades Private Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Tilak Raj filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is registered owner of vehicle No.HP-73- 6683 Maruti Alto 800 which was insured with opposite party No.2 vide insurance policy dated 17.11.2015 operative w.e.f. 17.11.2015 to 16.11.2016. It is pleaded that on dated 12.05.2016 complainant had gone to his village Saho Tehsil and District Chamba in the vehicle and parked his vehicle by the side of road. It is further pleaded that heavy rain took place in village Saho and road was flooded with water and flooded water entered into the vehicle of complainant and caused damage to the vehicle to its electrical system. It is pleaded that surveyor recommended the damage. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 did not reimbursed the bill and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 15947/-(Fifteen thousand nine hundred forty seven). Complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) as compensation for mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 1000/-(One thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that complainant is estopped from filing the present consumer complaint due to his own act and conduct. It is pleaded that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is further pleaded that complainant did not park his vehicle on the road side at Sahu road. It is pleaded that complainant had entered the vehicle in flooded rivulet to cross it. It is pleaded that complainant himself denied for insurance claim after the surveyor report and himself opted for payment of repairs. It is pleaded that dispute is between complainant and opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 is not liable. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that complainant is estopped from filing present consumer complaint by his own act and conduct. It is pleaded that dispute is between complainant and opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 is not liable. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that complainant is estopped from filing present consumer complaint by his own act and conduct. It is pleaded that complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hands and complainant has got no cause of action. It is further pleaded that no information was given to the insurance company. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service and did not indulge in any unfair trade practice. It is pleaded that insurance company did not get opportunity to inspect the vehicle and did not get opportunity to assess the loss. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party No.2 to pay an amount to the tune of Rs. 15947/- (Fifteen thousand nine hundred forty seven) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite party No.2 would pay an amount to the tune of Rs. 7500/-(Seven thousand five hundred) to complainant as compensation for mental harassment. In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite party No.2 would pay an amount to the tune of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand) as litigation costs. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of appellant and respondent No.1 and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. 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: 8. Complainant filed his affidavit Ext.CW-1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of vehicle No.HP-73-6683 Maruti Alto 800 which was duly insured with opposite party No.2 w.e.f. 17.11.2015 to 16.11.2016. There is recital in affidavit that on dated 12.05.2016 deponent had gone to his village Saho Tehsil and District Chamba and had parked the vehicle by the side of road. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of vehicle No.HP-73-6683 Maruti Alto 800 which was duly insured with opposite party No.2 w.e.f. 17.11.2015 to 16.11.2016. There is recital in affidavit that on dated 12.05.2016 deponent had gone to his village Saho Tehsil and District Chamba and had parked the vehicle by the side of road. There is recital in affidavit that heavy rain took place in village Saho due to which road was flooded and water entered into the vehicle of deponent and caused damage to its electrical system. There is further recital in affidavit that matter was reported to opposite parties No.1 & 2 telephonically. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was brought to service station of opposite party No.1. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was inspected by surveyor of opposite party No.2 and surveyor has mentioned in the report that damage was caused to vehicle of deponent due to natural calamity and covered under insurance claim. There is recital in affidavit that complainant requested opposite party No.2 to reimburse the repair bill but opposite party No.2 refused. There is further recital in affidavit that failure on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 to provide cashless service to deponent as per terms and conditions of insurance policy amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 9. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Shri Ravi Vaid Ext.PW1-1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant brought vehicle to workshop of opposite party No.1 for repair. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was inspected by mechanics of opposite party No.1 and after inspection it was observed that water was entered into engine of vehicle and same was required to be repaired. There is recital in affidavit that complainant asked the opposite party No.1 to repair the vehicle and opted for making payment of repairs by himself when the surveyor of insurance company told him that only the electrical parts other than engine essay parts are covered under the insurance claim. There is recital in affidavit that thereafter opposite party No.1 has repaired the vehicle of complainant as per instructions of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 submitted repairs bill of vehicle to complainant and complainant paid bill to opposite party No.1. There is recital in affidavit that thereafter opposite party No.1 has repaired the vehicle of complainant as per instructions of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 submitted repairs bill of vehicle to complainant and complainant paid bill to opposite party No.1. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was not parked on the road side but complainant entered the vehicle in the flooded rivulet to cross it and water entered inside the engine part of the vehicle. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. 10. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Shri Vidhi Passi Legal Manager Ext.OPW2-I in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that engine of vehicle was dismantled by opposite party No.1 as per instruction of complainant before its initial inspection by opposite party No.2. There is recital in affidavit that complainant did not inform about damage of vehicle to opposite party No.2. There is recital in affidavit that problem was related to engine essay parts of vehicle. There is recital in affidavit that engine of vehicle was dismantled before initial inspection by opposite party No.2. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that no information was given to insurance company about the factum of damage of vehicle and engine of vehicle was dismantled before initial inspection by opposite party No.2 and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused insurance policy placed on record. Insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 17.11.2015 to 16.11.2016. IDV value of vehicle in insurance policy has been mentioned as Rs. 283554/-(Two lac eighty three thousand five hundred fifty four). Insurance company has received total premium from complainant to the tune of Rs. 13232/-(Thirteen thousand two hundred thirty two). State Commission has also carefully perused cash memo issued by Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. Annexure-B placed on record and there is recital in cash memo that after survey of vehicle surveyor told that electrical parts other than engine essay parts affected because of natural calamity and claim was covered under insurance claim. Insurance company did not given any interrogatories to authorized signatory of cash memo who had issued bill of repair to the tune of Rs. 15947/- (Fifteen thousand nine hundred forty seven). Insurance company did not given any interrogatories to authorized signatory of cash memo who had issued bill of repair to the tune of Rs. 15947/- (Fifteen thousand nine hundred forty seven). No reasons has been assigned as to why insurance company did not send any interrogatories to person who has issued cash memo annexure-B. Adverse inference is drawn against insurance company. 12. In view of recital in cash memo that vehicle was inspected by the surveyor plea of insurance company that no intimation was given to the insurance company about factum of damage to vehicle is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). Cash memo Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. issued by opposite party No.1 could be used for corroborative purpose. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complainant entered the vehicle into flooded rivulet and water entered into engine portion of vehicle and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. Complainant has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that he parked vehicle on the road side at Saho Chamba and heavy rain took place and due to heavy rain flood came on the road and thereafter water entered into engine portion of the vehicle. The above stated facts mentioned by complainant in affidavit remained unrebutted on record. Affidavit filed by complainant is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission because complainant is eye witness of incident. 14. Affidavit filed by Ravi Vaid and Vidhi Passi Legal Manager posted in ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. are not helpful because Shri Ravi Vaid and Vidhi Passi were not present at Village Sahu on dated 12.05.2016 and they have not seen personally with their own eyes that complainant had entered the vehicle into flooded rivulet. In the absence of eye witnesses it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to accept the plea of insurance company. Plea of insurance company that water entered into engine of vehicle when engine was entered into flooded rivulet 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 amount to the tune of Rs. 7500/-(Seven thousand five hundred) was awarded as compensation to complainant for mental harassment is decided accordingly. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that excessive amount to the tune of Rs. 7500/-(Seven thousand five hundred) was awarded as compensation to complainant for mental harassment is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant has to engage advocate and complainant has to pay litigation charges. State Commission is of the opinion that reasonable compensation 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 the compensation order of learned District Forum. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum has granted excessive litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand) to complainant is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum has granted reasonable costs to complainant and 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 relating to litigation costs. 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. It is held that order passed by learned District Forum is strictly in accordance with law and is in accordance with proved facts. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in the order passed by learned District Forum. 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 filed by insurance company is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.36/2016 dated 09.03.2017 is affirmed. Insurance policy annexure-A and cash memo issued by Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. Annexure-B shall 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.