ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 18.10.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 52/2016 title Neelam Thakur v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Brief facts of consumer complaint : 2. Smt. Neelam filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of car having registration No. DL-8CL-5914 financed by ICICI bank. It is pleaded that complainant purchased insurance policy No.015243169202 which was valid w.e.f. 12.04.2015 to 11.04.2016. It is further pleaded that vehicle of the complainant met with accident on dated 09.12.2015 at about 08.45 PM and claim was filed before opposite parties. It is pleaded that surveyor cum loss assessor was also appointed by the opposite parties. It is pleaded that opposite party did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief as prayed in the relief clause of complaint. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action to file consumer complaint. It is pleaded that vehicle of complainant was insured with the opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 1110996/- (Eleven lac ten thousand nine hundred ninety six) w.e.f. 12.04.2015 to 11.04.2016. It is further pleaded that no accident took place as pleaded by the complainant. It is pleaded that false claim was filed. It is further pleaded that claim of the complainant was repudiated as per law and proved facts. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action and it is pleaded that opposite party 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 partly allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1110995/-(Eleven lac ten thousand nine hundred ninety five) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Learned District Forum also ordered the complainant to deposit salvage with the opposite party against proper receipt within 45 days. In addition learned District Forum ordered that complainant would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite party would also pay an amount of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) as litigation costs. In addition learned District Forum ordered that complainant would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite party would also 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 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 Ext. CW-1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is owner in possession of car Volkswagen Passat bearing registration No. DL-8CL-5914 financed by ICICI bank. There is recital in affidavit that complainant also purchased insurance policy No.015243169202 which was valid w.e.f. 12.04.2015 to 11.04.2016. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle of complainant met with accident on 09.12.2015 at about 8.45 PM and claim was filed before opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that husband of complainant namely Shri R.S. Guleria was driving the vehicle and vehicle rolled down 300 feets down. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle damaged in the accident and complainant sustained total loss of vehicle. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was evacuated by Kangra Herbs and costs of evacuation evacuated by way of bills are attached with the complaint. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party appointed two surveyors. There is recital in affidavit that legal notice was also given to the opposite party and opposite party committed deficiency in service. 8. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Raghubir Singh Guleria. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle met with accident on 09.12.2015 at about 8.45 PM. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle rolled down 300 feets in a gorge. There is recital in affidavit that reports of surveyors are not factually correct. State Commission has perused annexure-C1 to C13 filed by complainant carefully. 9. Opposite party filed affidavit of Mohd. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle rolled down 300 feets in a gorge. There is recital in affidavit that reports of surveyors are not factually correct. State Commission has perused annexure-C1 to C13 filed by complainant carefully. 9. Opposite party filed affidavit of Mohd. Azhar working as Head Claims North Zone in Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has no cause of action and complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle NL-8CL-5914 was insured with the opposite party for IDV value of Rs. 1110996/-(Eleven lac ten thousand nine hundred ninety six) w.e.f. 12.04.2015 to 11.04.2016. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party appointed Sh. Vishal Acharya surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that as per surveyor''s report there was no possibility of driver jumping from the car because vehicle Volkswagen passat remains locked in moving position. There is further recital in affidavit that driver side door of vehicle open towards gorge and there was no space to driver to escape without injuries. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party appointed another surveyor cum loss assessor namely Manoj K. Kukreja. There is recital in affidavit that no accident took place as alleged by complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that repudiation letter was issued in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts by opposite party. 10. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Satyendra Pandey. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is working as senior manager in Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. There is further recital in affidavit that at the time of accident Shri R.S. Guleria was driving the vehicle. There is recital in affidavit that Sh. R.S. Guleria did not submit any medical certificate in order to prove injuries. There is recital in affidavit that driver was carrying Mobile numbers 9811551133 & 9418010750 at the time of accident. There is recital in affidavit that driver had used mobile phone to call Mr. Vivek Rana and Mr. Multan. There is further recital in affidavit that Mr. Vivek Rana came to pick him up. 11. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Sh. Vishal Acharya. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is qualified surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that driver had used mobile phone to call Mr. Vivek Rana and Mr. Multan. There is further recital in affidavit that Mr. Vivek Rana came to pick him up. 11. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Sh. Vishal Acharya. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is qualified surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that insurance company hired the services of deponent. There is recital in affidavit that deponent conducted the spot survey and submitted his report and same be read as part & parcel of affidavit. 12. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Manoj Kukreja. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is qualified surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent conducted the spot survey. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party hired the service of deponent to conduct investigation of vehicle No. DL-8-CL-5914. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has conducted investigation and had submitted investigation report and same be read as part and parcel of affidavit. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that there was no possibility of driver namely R.S. Guleria jumping out from the car at the time of accident because vehicle Volkswagen passat remain locked in moving position and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has perused the email report submitted by Jatin Bahri employee of manufacturing company placed on record. Jatin Bahri employee of manufacturing company has specifically mentioned in the report that it was possible to open door of Passat vehicle while in running/moving condition at second tug. State Commission is of the opinion that email report submitted by Jatin Bahri could be used as corroborative evidence. Onus was upon the insurance company to prove that there was no possibility of driver jumping out from vehicle because vehicle remained locked in moving condition. Insurance company did not file affidavit of any employee of manufacturing company in order to prove that door of vehicle would remain locked in moving condition of vehicle. Hence plea of insurance company that door of vehicle would remain locked during moving condition of vehicle is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 14. Insurance company did not file affidavit of any employee of manufacturing company in order to prove that door of vehicle would remain locked in moving condition of vehicle. Hence plea of insurance company that door of vehicle would remain locked during moving condition of vehicle 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 driver R.S. Guleria did not submit any medical certificate qua his injuries and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Shri R.S. Guleria is the only eye witness of the incident. He has mentioned in affidavit in a positive manner that vehicle was rolled down in gorge and was damaged and even police report was also lodged immediately. Affidavit of eye witness Shri R.S. Guleria is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by R.S. Guleria who is the sole eye witness of incident. Insurance company did not file any application for interrogatories of R.S. Guleria for his cross examination. Opposite party has filed the application for cross examination of complainant namely Neelam Thakur. Neelam Thakur was not present in the vehicle at the time of incident and Neelam Thakur is not the eye witness of the incident. Hence adverse inference is drawn against the opposite party for non filing of interrogatories relating to cross examination of R.S. Guleria who is sole eye witness of the incident. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that on the basis of report submitted by Mr. Vishal Acharya surveyor cum loss assessor appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the report of surveyor cum loss assessor namely Vishal Acharya. Shri Vishal Acharya has mentioned in damage report that 44 items of vehicle were damaged. Report of Vishal Acharya surveyor cum loss assessor that 44 items of vehicle were damaged remained unrebutted on record. Vishal Acharya recommended the case for further investigation. Thereafter further investigation was conducted by Shri Manoj K. Kukreja. Manoj K. Kukreja surveyor cum loss assessor has submitted the report that if vehicle was driven and was got slipped at the time of accident then there was no possibility that driver could jump out of the car. Shri Manoj K. Kukreja has submitted the report that insurance company is not liable. Manoj K. Kukreja surveyor cum loss assessor has submitted the report that if vehicle was driven and was got slipped at the time of accident then there was no possibility that driver could jump out of the car. Shri Manoj K. Kukreja has submitted the report that insurance company is not liable. We have carefully perused the report submitted by Manoj K. Kukreja. State Commission is of the opinion that report submitted by Manoj K. Kukreja is not reliable & trustworthy because Sh. Manoj K. Kukreja did not obtain opinion of mechanic expert of manufacturing company. No reason assigned by Manoj K. Kukreja as to why he did not obtain the opinion of mechanic expert of manufacturing company prior to submitting the report to insurance company. Shri Manoj K. Kukreja has received consideration amount from insurance company and State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to rely upon the report of Manoj K. Kukreja because he did not obtain the report of mechanic expert of manufacturing company relating to locking system. 16. On the contrary corroborative report has been submitted by Jatin Bahri employee of manufacturing company of vehicle that it was possible to open the door of Passat vehicle while in moving stage at second tug. State Commission is of the opinion that report submitted by Jatin Bahri could be used for corroborative purpose by the State Commission. Shri Vishal Acharya and Sh. Manoj Kukreja are not the eye witnesses of the incident and they have submitted report on the basis of evidence collected by them at the subsequent stage of the incident. Surveyors cum loss assessors did not obtain report of mechanic expert relating to locking of door of driver side during moving condition of vehicle. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and is 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 and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the order passed by learned District Forum. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural 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 is dismissed. Order dated 18.10.2016 passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.52/2016 title Neelam v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. is affirmed. Email letter sent by Jatin Bahri employee of manufacturing company dated 05.09.2016 relating to locking system of vehicle during moving condition of vehicle would 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.