ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 02.09.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in Consumer complaint No. 08/2016 title Shan Dei v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd . Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Smt. Shan Dei filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is registered owner of vehicle No.HP-45-0256 which was insured with the opposite party w.e.f. 29.11.2013 to 28.11.2014. It is pleaded that vehicle met with accident on dated 10.12.2013 at place near Forest Check Post Mahalu Rivulet Tehsil Pangi District Chamba H.P. It is further pleaded that vehicle was totally damaged and factum of accident was intimated to the opposite party and FIR No. 24 dated 11.12.2013 was also registered in police station Pangi. It is pleaded that vehicle rolled down 450 meters below into narrow rivulet. It is further pleaded that complainant submitted claim before opposite party and complainant also sent reminder to opposite party. It is pleaded that complainant purchased the vehicle to earn her livelihood by availing loan from HPGB Branch Sach Tehsil Pangi District Chamba H.P. It is further pleaded that notice was also served upon the opposite party. It is pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 428640/-(Four lac twenty eight thousand six hundred forty) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till date of final payment. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) on account of litigation costs. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own act and conduct. It is pleaded that complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hands and complaint is barred by limitation. It is further pleaded that driver of vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is pleaded that driver was driving the vehicle in intoxicating state of condition. It is further pleaded that complainant did not submit claim form, RC, insurance, Driving Licence, Route permit, fitness certificate and road tax etc. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. It is pleaded that driver was driving the vehicle in intoxicating state of condition. It is further pleaded that complainant did not submit claim form, RC, insurance, Driving Licence, Route permit, fitness certificate and road tax etc. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Complainant also filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to pay Rs. 428140/-(Four lac twenty eight thousand one hundred forty) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay an amount of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) as mental harassment to complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay an amount of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand) on account of litigation costs. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite party 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 filed affidavit Ext.CW1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of vehicle No.HP-45-0256 which was insured with the opposite party w.e.f. 29.11.2013 to 28.11.2014. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle met with accident on 10.12.2013 at place near Forest Check Post Mahalu Rivulet Tehsil Pangi District Chamba H.P and sustained total loss. There is recital in affidavit that deponent intimated the factum of accident to opposite party and FIR No. 24 dated 11.12.2013 was also lodged. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party deputed surveyor to inspect the accidental vehicle and assessed the loss. There is recital in affidavit that accidental vehicle rolled down 450 meter below narrow rivulet and sustained total loss. There is recital in affidavit that deponent submitted her claim before opposite party but opposite party did not settle the claim. 8. There is recital in affidavit that accidental vehicle rolled down 450 meter below narrow rivulet and sustained total loss. There is recital in affidavit that deponent submitted her claim before opposite party but opposite party did not settle the claim. 8. Learned Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party namely Shri Darpan Vaid has given statement before learned District Forum on dated 11.08.2016 that version already filed and annexures OP1 & OP2 be read in evidence on behalf of opposite party and closed the evidence. State Commission has also perused annexures C1 to C14 filed by complainant and also perused annexures OP1 & OP2 filed by opposite party carefully. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that cause of action arose to the complainant on 10.12.2013 when the vehicle met with accident and present consumer complaint was filed by complainant on 21.12.2015 after the expiry period for filing consumer complaint under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that till date insurance company did not repudiate the claim filed by complainant. It is well settled law that limitation for filing consumer complaint under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 starts from the date of repudiation of claim by insurance company. It is held that consumer complaint was filed by complainant during continuance of cause of action because there is no evidence on record that insurance company has repudiated claim. See 2012(2) CPJ 312 NC titled Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors . Also see 1993(3) CPJ 305 NC Bank of India v. H.C.L. Ltd . See 1998(2) CPC 577 NC Time properties and Promoters Etc. v. Rakesh Jain . See 1999(2) CPJ NC 13 State Bank of India v. Ananda Mohan Saha . 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that vehicle was hypothecated with financer i.e. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. at the time of accident and Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. is necessary party and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Complainant did not seek any relief against Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. State Commission has carefully perused the insurance policy issued by opposite party annexure-C1 placed on record. Complainant did not seek any relief against Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. State Commission has carefully perused the insurance policy issued by opposite party annexure-C1 placed on record. In the insurance policy the name of insured has been mentioned as Shan Dei in a positive manner. It is held that privity of contract was executed between complainant and insurance company. It is held that finance company has separate cause of action against the complainant if any and has a separate remedy against complainant if any. We are of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to club cause of action of Shan Dei and finance company in the present consumer complaint. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum did not hand over salvage of vehicle in question to insurance company in case of total loss and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that in total loss cases salvage should be returned to insurance company and RC in the name of complainant should be cancelled forthwith and RC in the name of insurance company should be issued. It is held that learned District Forum has committed illegality by way of not passing any order relating to salvage of vehicle in the present consumer complaint. 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 be allowed is decided accordingly. As per RC annexure-C2 unladen weight of vehicle involved in accident was 1625 Kg. As per section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 LMV vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus vehicle the gross unladen weight of vehicle does not exceed 7500 kilograms. State Commission has also perused driving licence placed on record. Driving licence was issued in the name of Prittam Singh driver w.e.f 01.02.2013 to 31.01.2016 by licensing authority. As per driving licence driver was competent to drive transport vehicle, motorcycle & Light Motor Vehicle. It is held that vehicle falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act. It is held that driver was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 13. As per driving licence driver was competent to drive transport vehicle, motorcycle & Light Motor Vehicle. It is held that vehicle falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act. It is held that 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 at the time of accident driver was in intoxicating condition and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Onus to prove that driver at the time of accident was in intoxicating condition was upon insurance company. Insurance company did not file any affidavit of any medical officer who has examined driver in order to prove that at the time of accident driver was in intoxicating condition. Insurance company did not file any affidavit under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to controversial facts and learned advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party has given statement before learned District Forum on dated 11.08.2016 that version filed by opposite party and annexures OP1 & OP2 filed by opposite party be read in evidence. Hence plea of insurance company that driver was in intoxicating condition 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 driving licence submitted by driver is fake licence and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Onus to prove that driving licence submitted by driver was fake was upon insurance company. Insurance company did not file affidavit of any person from licencing authority in order to prove that driving licence placed on record is a fake licence. Hence plea of insurance company that driving licence submitted by complainant was fake is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 15. 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 and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum has committed illegality by way of not passing any order relating to salvage of vehicle. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum has committed illegality by way of not passing any order relating to salvage of vehicle. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered party in yes and partly in no. Point No. 2: Final Order 16. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is partly allowed and it is ordered that salvage would be returned to the insurance company and RC in the name of complainant would be cancelled forthwith and RC in the name of insurance company would be issued. It is further ordered that complainant would hand over all documents of vehicle to insurance company within a month and complainant would also execute subrogation deed qua vehicle in favour of insurance company within one month. In alternative insurance company is at liberty to deduct the salvage value of the vehicle from compensation amount granted by learned District Forum to the tune of Rs. 428140/- (Four lac twenty eight thousand one hundred forty). Other part of order passed by learned District Forum is affirmed. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. Statement of learned advocate appeared on behalf of insurance company dated 11.08.2016 will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. 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.