ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 03.05.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 162/2016 title Ayush Thakur v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Brief facts of consumer complaint : 2. Ayush filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of Maxi Cab i.e. Tata Suma having registration No. HP-01D-4470. It is pleaded that complainant purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured with opposite party vide policy No.263293/31/2016/242 w.e.f. 06.07.2015 to 05.07.2016 in consideration amount of Rs. 550000/-(Five lac fifty thousand). It is further pleaded that vehicle of complainant met with accident on 20.07.2015 and was damaged badly. It is pleaded that matter was also reported in the police station vide G.D. No.4(A) dated 21.07.2015. It is further pleaded that opposite party repudiated the claim on flimsy ground and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought damage to the tune of Rs. 550000/-(Five lac fifty thousand) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till its realization alongwith litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). In addition complainant sought damage for mental and physical harassment to the tune of Rs. 25000/-(Twenty five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that in the claim form complainant specifically mentioned that vehicle was driven by Pritam Singh and in FIR it has been mentioned that vehicle was driven by complainant Ayush. It is pleaded that complainant has committed fundamental breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy relating to driving licence. It is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present consumer complaint and complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complainant has suppressed material facts. 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. 488500/-(Four lac eighty eight thousand five hundred) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. 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. 488500/-(Four lac eighty eight thousand five hundred) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. Learned District Forum further ordered that in addition opposite party would pay an amount of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) to complainant as compensation for mental harassment. In addition learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay a sum of Rs. 3000/ (Three thousand) as litigation costs to complainant. 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 filed affidavit Ext. CW1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is owner of Maxi Cab i.e. Tata Sumo having registration No. HP-01D-4470. There is recital in affidavit that complainant had purchased vehicle for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was insured with opposite party vide policy No.263293/31/2016/242 w.e.f. 06.07.2015 to 05.07.2016 in consideration amount of Rs. 550000/-(Five lac fifty thousand). There is recital in affidavit that vehicle met with accident on 20.07.2015 and due to accident vehicle was damaged badly. There is further recital in affidavit that matter was also reported to police agency. There is recital in affidavit that Pritam is the father of deponent and opposite party obtained the signature of father of deponent on blank papers. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party repudiated the claim and committed deficiency in service. 8. Complainant also filed affidavit of Pritam in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is owner of Maxi Cab i.e. Tata Sumo having registration No. HP-01D-4470. There is recital in affidavit that on 20.07.2015 complainant was driving the vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that in accident vehicle was damaged badly. 8. Complainant also filed affidavit of Pritam in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is owner of Maxi Cab i.e. Tata Sumo having registration No. HP-01D-4470. There is recital in affidavit that on 20.07.2015 complainant was driving the vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that in accident vehicle was damaged badly. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was bed ridden due to injuries sustained by complainant in accident. There is recital in affidavit that surveyor obtained the signature of deponent on blank papers. 9. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Sh. Ram Mohan Negi in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is working as Branch Manager in Oriental Insurance Company. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Forum. There is further recital in affidavit that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by complainant but before investigator and surveyor complainant has stated that vehicle was driven by Pritam Singh son of Shri Budhi Singh. There is recital in affidavit that Ayush was having LMV licence only and was not competent to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has committed fundamental breach of terms & conditions of insurance policy. 10. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Kamlesh Chaddha in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. hired the services of deponent to conduct investigation. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has conducted investigation and submitted the report and same be read as part and parcel of affidavit. 11. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Ravi Kumar surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is qualified surveyor and loss assessor and deponent conducted the spot survey. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 477312/-(Four lac seventy seven thousand three hundred twelve). 12. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Rajesh surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is qualified surveyor and loss assessor. There is further recital in affidavit that insurance company hired the services of deponent and deponent submitted his report to insurance company. 13. 477312/-(Four lac seventy seven thousand three hundred twelve). 12. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Rajesh surveyor cum loss assessor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is qualified surveyor and loss assessor. There is further recital in affidavit that insurance company hired the services of deponent and deponent submitted his report to insurance company. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that vehicle involved in accident was transport vehicle and there was no endorsement of transport vehicle in the driving licence of Ayush Kumar and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Hon''ble Apex court has held that driver holding LMV licence could drive LMV transport vehicle. See 2017(8) SCC 590 Apex Court titled Sant Lal v. Rajesh and others . It is well settled law that ruling given by Hon''ble Apex Court of India is binding upon all courts and Tribunal and Commission under article 141 of Constitution of India. Even as per Registration Certificate issued by licencing authority vehicle falls within definition of LMV vehicle because unladen weight of vehicle was 1800 KG and laden weight of vehicle was 2600 KG. As per section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 LMV vehicle means transport vehicle unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 Kilograms. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that in the claim form complainant has mentioned the name of driver as Pritam Singh and even surveyors have mentioned the name of driver as Pritam Singh and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the affidavit filed by Pritam Singh and he has specifically mentioned in affidavit that settlement form was filled by employee of insurance company himself and his signatures were obtained upon blank paper only. Insurance company did not file any application for cross examination of Pritam by way of interrogatories. No reason assigned by insurance company as to why insurance company did not file application for cross examination of Pritam by way of interrogatories. Hence adverse inference is drawn against insurance company. It is well settled law that party could not be allowed to take benefit of its own laxity and inaction. Even in the police report it has been specifically mentioned that vehicle was driven by Ayush. Hence adverse inference is drawn against insurance company. It is well settled law that party could not be allowed to take benefit of its own laxity and inaction. Even in the police report it has been specifically mentioned that vehicle was driven by Ayush. Written police report lodged on 21.07.2015 by Sanjay Kumar S/o. Shri Karnail R/o. Cant Nala P.O. Gharoh Tehsil & Police Station Dharamshala. Insurance company did not seek interrogatories from Sanjay Kumar as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence adverse inference is drawn against insurance company. Even insurance company did not seek any interrogatories from police official who had recorded the entry in daily station diary P.S. Dharamshala in order to contradict the contents of daily station diary wherein it has been specifically mentioned that vehicle at the time of accident was driven by Ayush Kumar son of Sh. Pritam. Entry in daily station diary was recorded by public servant in discharge of his official duty and is a relevant fact and could be used for corroborative purpose. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that driving licence issued in the name of Ayush was issued for a period of twenty years by Licencing Authority contrary to rules and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Insurance company did not file any interrogatories to licence authority. It is well settled law that licence was issued by public authority and it is well settled law that complainant could not be held liable qua laxity and inaction committed by Licencing Authority. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that licence was obtained by complainant in collusion with Licencing Authority illegally. Fact of collusion between licence holder and Licencing Authority is not proved by insurance company as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that investigator had recorded written statement of Ayush Kumar and Pritam Singh placed on record wherein Ayush and Pritam have specifically stated that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by Pritam Singh and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Insurance company did not file any application for interrogatories of Ayush and Pritam for the purpose of contradicting them qua their previous statement recorded by investigator. Insurance company did not file any application for interrogatories of Ayush and Pritam for the purpose of contradicting them qua their previous statement recorded by investigator. It is well settled law that no previous statement could be used against author of previous statement unless the previous statements were contradicted in accordance with law. In the present consumer complaint insurance company did not contradict the previous statement of Ayush and Pritam by way of interrogatories. It is held that insurance company could not be allowed to take benefit of its own laxity and inaction. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings. 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. Learned District Forum has granted compensation to complainant as assessed by surveyor cum loss assessor appointed by insurance company. 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 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 03.05.2017 passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.162/2016 title Ayush Thakur v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is affirmed. Daily station diary annexure-C4 dated 21.07.2015 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.