ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 22.06.2017 passed by Learned District Forum Kullu in consumer complaint No.57/2015 titled Barkat Ali vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Barkat Ali filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is registered owner of vehicle No.HP-66A- 1222 (Tractor Balwan 400). It is pleaded that vehicle is hypothecated with Punjab National Bank Takoli District Mandi H.P. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured with opposite parties w.e.f. 08.11.2014 to 07.11.2015 through opposite party No.3 who is authorised agent of opposite parties No.1&2. It is pleaded that complainant paid a sum of Rs. 22000/-(Twenty two thousand) to agent namely Shri Abdul Malik. It is pleaded that on dated 09.06.2015 tractor met with accident at place known as Nihara District Kullu H.P and vehicle was totally damaged. It is pleaded that complainant lodged police report on dated 09.06.2015 in police post Neuli District Kullu H.P. It is further pleaded that insurance company cancelled the insurance policy. It is pleaded that complainant requested insurance company to settle the claim but insurance company did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief as mentioned in the relief clause of complaint. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 pleaded therein that insurance policy was relating to third party liability only. It is pleaded that vehicle was not insured for O.D claim. It is pleaded that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present consumer complaint and complainant be relegated to civil court for adjudication of dispute. It is further pleaded that complainant did not approach learned District Forum with clean hands and suppressed material facts from the Forum. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 pleaded therein that vehicle was insured against the risk of third party only. It is pleaded that premium was not paid by complainant by cash to opposite party No.3. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 5. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. It is pleaded that premium was not paid by complainant by cash to opposite party No.3. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 5. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties 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 affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of vehicle No.HP66A-1222. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was insured with opposite parties No.1 & 2 through opposite party No.3 who is authorised agent of opposite parties No.1 & 2. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.3 collected the premium by way of cash and issued the insurance policy to deponent at his residence. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant paid Rs. 22000/-(Twenty two thousand) by way of cash to opposite party No.3 relating to comprehensive insurance policy No.6047542334000178 operative w.e.f. 08.11.2014 to 07.11.2015. There is recital in affidavit that on dated 09.06.2015 vehicle met with accident and claim was submitted before insurance company but insurance company did not settle the claim. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant. 9. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed affidavit of shri Yadvinder Guleria Branch Manager in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that only third party insurance policy was issued and own damage claim insurance policy was not issued. There is recital in affidavit that present complaint involves complicated question of law and facts and complainant be relegated to civil court for adjudication of dispute. 10. Opposite party No.3 Shri Abdul Malik agent also filed his affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that premium relating to disputed policy was not received by deponent by way of cash as pleaded in complaint. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has issued comprehensive insurance policy No.6047542334000178 for period 08.11.2014 to 07.11.2015 Annexure-C3 placed on record and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has issued comprehensive insurance policy No.6047542334000178 for period 08.11.2014 to 07.11.2015 Annexure-C3 placed on record and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused insurance policy No.6047542334000178. It is proved on record that insurance comprehensive policy No.6047542334000178 annexure-C3 was issued by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. relating to vehicle No.HP-66A-1222 RTO Himachal Pradesh Kullu for IDV of Rs. 450000/-(Four lac fifty thousand). It is proved on record that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has received premium of O.D claim to the tune of Rs. 4598/-(Four thousand five hundred ninety eight) and it is also proved on record that entire premium was received to the tune of Rs. 21537/-(Twenty one thousand five hundred thirty seven). In coloumn No.8 of insurance policy relating to payment detail it has been specifically mentioned that premium amount to the tune of Rs. 21537/-(Twenty one thousand five hundred thirty seven) was received by way of cash by insurance company from complainant. Name of intermediary has been mentioned as Abdul Malik. 12. State Commission has also perused the affidavit filed by Shri Yadvinder Guleria Branch Manager. Shri Yadvinder Guleria has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that premium of insurance policy No.6047542334000178 was received by way of cheque which was dishonoured. State Commission fails to understand that in coloumn 7 of insurance policy No.6047542334000178 annexure-C3 there is recital that premium of insurance policy was received by way of cash but in affidavit Branch Manager has mentioned that payment was received by way of cheque. There is material contradictions relating to mode of payment of premium in insurance policy annexure-C3 and affidavit of Branch Manager of Insurance company. Insurance policy annexure-C3 was issued by duly constituted Attorney of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Mandi. Insurance company did not file affidavit of official who had personally issued insurance policy annexure-C3. There is no recital in the affidavit of Shri Yadvinder Singh Branch Manager that he has personally issued Insurance policy annexure-C3 on behalf of Insurance Company. 13. Even complainant has specifically mentioned that he has paid the amount of premium of Rs. 22000/-(Twenty two thousand) to agent by way of cash. Plea of complainant is corroborative with contents of insurance policy No.6047542334000178. 13. Even complainant has specifically mentioned that he has paid the amount of premium of Rs. 22000/-(Twenty two thousand) to agent by way of cash. Plea of complainant is corroborative with contents of insurance policy No.6047542334000178. In view of the fact that there is recital in insurance policy No.6047542334000178 annexure- C3 that payment of premium of insurance policy was received by way of cash State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company could not be exonerated from liability. As per record no prior O.D claim has been received by complainant relating to any previous policy. 14. State Commission has also carefully perused police report annexure-C4 placed on record. There is positive recital in police report that accident took place due to failure of hand brake and police has specifically mentioned in the report that driver was not at fault. State Commission is of the opinion that police report could be used for corroborative purpose because police report has been prepared by public servant while discharging his official duty. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that comprehensive policy No.6047542334000178 was not issued by insurance company and only policy relating to third party risk was issued by insurance company and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the affidavit filed by Branch Manager namely Shri Yadvinder Guleria. Shri Yadvinder Guleria has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that policy No.6047542334000178 was inactive due to cheque bounced but as per contents of insurance policy No.6047542334000178 annexure-C3 premium of insurance policy was not paid to insurance company by way of cheque but was paid by way of cash. Payment details has been mentioned in coloumn No.8 of insurance policy and mode of payment has been mentioned in insurance policy No.6047542334000178 annexure-C3 as by way of cash. Mode of payment has not been mentioned as cheque. In view of the above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to admit the plea of insurance company that premium was paid to insurance company relating to insurance policy No.6047542334000178 by way of cheque. Even insurance company has not placed on record original policy of third party risk only as pleaded in version. Hence adverse inference is drawn against insurance company. 16. Even insurance company has not placed on record original policy of third party risk only as pleaded in version. Hence adverse inference is drawn against insurance company. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complicated matter is involved in present consumer complaint and complainant be relegated to civil court 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 complainant to civil court because Branch Manager of opposite parties No.1&2 Shri Yadvinder Guleria has specifically mentioned in the affidavit in para-3 that insurance policy No.6047542334000178 was inactive due to cheque bounced. Meaning thereby factum of issuance of insurance policy is admitted by Branch Manager and its validity was questioned on the basis of cheque bounced but in the mode of payment column relating to insurance policy No.6047542334000178 it has been specifically mentioned that premium payment was made by way of cash. 17. There is no recital in insurance policy No.6047542334000178 that premium amount was paid by way of cheque and details of cheque number has not been mentioned. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company could not be allowed to take benefit of its own laxity. No reasons assigned by insurance company as to why insurance company did not mention cheque number in insurance policy No.6047542334000178 annexure-C3 which was dishonoured. Plea of insurance company that premium was paid to the insurance company relating to disputed insurance policy by way of cheque is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 18. Even insurance company did not file any FIR against complainant that complainant has prepared forged insurance policy. Insurance company took the plea of forged insurance policy just to exonerate from liability qua payment of insurance claim. Even insurance company did not file any application before learned District Forum to seek opinion of handwriting expert in order to disprove signature of duly constituted Attorney of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Mandi (H.P) who had issued insurance policy on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2. Hence adverse inference is drawn against insurance company. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 19. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by complainant is allowed. Hence adverse inference is drawn against insurance company. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 19. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by complainant is allowed. Order of learned District Forum is set aside. It is ordered that opposite parties No.1 & 2 shall jointly and severally pay IDV claim of vehicle to complainant to the tune of Rs. 450000/-(Four lac fifty thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum from institution of complaint till realization. It is further ordered that opposite parties No.1 & 2 shall jointly and severally pay compensation to complainant for mental agony to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). It is further ordered that opposite parties No.1 & 2 shall jointly and severally pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. Insurance policy annexure-C3 and report of police annexure- C4 shall form part and parcel of order. 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.