JUDGMENT P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 14.03.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.58/2014 titled Kamla Devi v. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Smt. Kamla Devi filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of vehicle registration No. HP-63A-1350. It is pleaded that vehicle was purchased for earning livelihood by means of self employment. It is pleaded that vehicle was duly insured with opposite party for IDV value of Rs. 538118/- (Five lac thirty eight thousand one hundred eighteen) w.e.f. 08.08.2012 to 07.08.2013. It is further pleaded that vehicle met with accident on dated 05.08.2013 and FIR was filed. It is pleaded that claim was filed before opposite party. It is pleaded that opposite party did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 350000/- (Three lac fifty thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2014 till the date of actual payment. In addition complainant sought punitive compensation for mental agony and 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 vehicle was insured with opposite party for a sum of Rs. 538118/- (Five lac thirty eight thousand one hundred eighteen). It is pleaded that there was delay of 12 days in giving intimation to opposite party and opposite party was deprived of valuable right to investigate the matter. It is pleaded that opposite party appointed surveyor cum loss assessor namely Shri Sandeep Sharma. It is pleaded that surveyor cum loss assessor requested the complainant to supply relevant documents but relevant documents were not supplied. It is further pleaded that thereafter surveyor cum loss assessor submitted report on the basis of physical inspection and assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 95000/-(Ninety five thousand) on repair basis. It is pleaded that loss assessed by surveyor cum loss assessor is not above 75% of the sum assured. It is pleaded that insurance company is not liable to pay the amount to the insurer on the basis of total loss. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. It is pleaded that loss assessed by surveyor cum loss assessor is not above 75% of the sum assured. It is pleaded that insurance company is not liable to pay the amount to the insurer on the basis of total loss. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum ordered that complainant shall furnish documents to the opposite party within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would send copy of documents to surveyor and thereafter surveyor would assess loss de novo and would settle the claim in accordance with law within 45 days from the date of receipt of documents. Learned District Forum further ordered that in case surveyor who has conducted the survey would not be available for any reasons then opposite party would be at liberty to appoint another surveyor cum loss assessor for assessment of loss. Learned District Forum further ordered that in case complainant would not be satisfied with the settlement of claim by opposite party then she would be at liberty to approach forum again in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant 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 of Shri Yash Pal in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is husband of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that complainant immediately informed the insurance company about the accident on 06.08.2013. There is recital in affidavit that complainant supplied all the estimates and bills to surveyor in original. There is recital in affidavit that deponent was influenced and coerced by opposite party to accept Rs. 300000/-(Three lac) only and consent voucher was obtained to the tune of Rs. 350000/-(Three lac fifty thousand). State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant. 8. Opposite party filed affidavit of Pallavi Roy in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is working as Manager (Legal). 300000/-(Three lac) only and consent voucher was obtained to the tune of Rs. 350000/-(Three lac fifty thousand). State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant. 8. Opposite party filed affidavit of Pallavi Roy in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is working as Manager (Legal). There is recital in affidavit that version and annexures OP1 to OP7 be read in evidence as part and parcel of affidavit. There is recital in affidavit that claim was closed as no claim because complainant did not supply the relevant documents demanded by the surveyor cum loss assessor. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for a sum of Rs. 350000/-(Three lac fifty thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2014 till the date of actual payment is decided accordingly. It is proved on record vide annexure-C2 that insurance policy was issued by opposite party in favour of Smt. Kamla Devi relating to vehicle No. HP-63A-1350 which was operative w.e.f. 08.08.2012 to 07.08.2013. It is also proved on record that premium was paid by the complainant to insurance company and it is also proved on record that FIR No.90 dated 06.08.2013 was also filed in police station Dharampur. At the time of accident vehicle was coming from Rohru to Chandigarh and on the way another vehicle came from opposite side loaded with sand and insured vehicle hit the other vehicle from front side and was damaged. Insurance company appointed surveyor cum loss assessor namely Shri Sandeep Sharma who is approved surveyor appointed under section 64UM (2) of Insurance Act 1938. Surveyor cum loss assessor has personally inspected the vehicle and recommend the payment of loss to the tune of Rs. 95000/-(Ninety five thousand) on repair basis. 10. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that surveyor cum loss assessor has hostile animus against the complainant at any point of time. Report submitted by surveyor cum loss assessor remained unrebutted on record. Complainant did not place on record any counter loss assessment surveyor report. Complainant also did not file any interrogatories to surveyor cum loss assessor. No reason assigned by complainant as to why complainant did not send any interrogatories to surveyor cum loss assessor. There is no reason to disbelieve the loss assessment report submitted by surveyor cum loss assessor. Complainant did not place on record any counter loss assessment surveyor report. Complainant also did not file any interrogatories to surveyor cum loss assessor. No reason assigned by complainant as to why complainant did not send any interrogatories to surveyor cum loss assessor. There is no reason to disbelieve the loss assessment report submitted by surveyor cum loss assessor. It is well settled law that report submitted by surveyor cum loss assessor appointed under section 64UM(2) of Insurance Act 1938 is substantial piece of evidence and due credence should be given to the report submitted by surveyor unless contrary is proved against the surveyor. See 2012 (1) CPJ 420 NC H.C Saxena vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. See 2010(3) CPJ 401 NC New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Chhabra. See 2010 (1) CPC 696 NC Champa Lal Verma vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. See 2012(4) CPJ 103 NC National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jyothi Tobacco Traders. See 2017 (1) CPJ 529 NC Ashish Kumar Jaiswal v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant has submitted bill and as per bill complainant is entitled for payment of Rs. 350000/-(Three lac fifty thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the controversial bill placed on record. Complainant did not file affidavit of the person who has issued the controversial bill. It is well settled law that contents of controversial bill should be proved by way of affidavit of a person who had issued the controversial bill. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings and photostat controversial bills are not perse admissible under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Under Consumer Protection Act 1986 documents could be produced in evidence which are producible as evidence. State Commission is of the opinion that in quasi judicial proceedings controversial documents are producible as evidence by way of primary evidence or by way of secondary evidence only. Hence plea of complainant that complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 350000/- (Three lac fifty thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum is partly defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 12. Hence plea of complainant that complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 350000/- (Three lac fifty thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum is partly defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that full and final settlement was executed inter se parties to the tune of Rs. 300000/- (Three lac) and consent of complainant was also obtained by opposite party and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. Complainant did not place on record any full and final settlement voucher signed by complainant and opposite party. It is well settled law that documents could be used against party only when document is signed by party. There is no evidence on record that insurance company has signed the settlement of Rs. 300000/- (Three lac) as full and final settlement. In the absence of any signed document on behalf of insurance company relating to offer of payment of Rs. 300000/- (Three lac) it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to accept the plea of complainant. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that when once consent was obtained then there was no question of non-payment of claim and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that unilateral consent signed by complainant is not binding upon insurance company till insurance company signed the full and final settlement voucher personally through authorised person. As per law offer and acceptance are essential ingredients for valid contract. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant has handed over the salvage of the truck in dispute to insurance company and is entitled for payment on total loss basis is decided accordingly. It is held that there is no evidence on record in order to prove that complainant has executed subrogation deed in favour of insurance company. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that R.C. of vehicle has been transferred in the name of insurance company. It is held that there is no evidence on record in order to prove that complainant has executed subrogation deed in favour of insurance company. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that R.C. of vehicle has been transferred in the name of insurance company. As per section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor the guardian of such minor and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) as punitive damage and compensation for mental harassment is decided accordingly. Insurance company did not release the amount as assessed by surveyor cum loss assessor and complainant has to approach learned District Forum for redressal of his grievances. Hence it is held that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable compensation. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complainant has given intimation in a delayed manner to insurance company and did not submit requisite documents to insurance company and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company has appointed surveyor duly licensed under section 64UM(2) of Insurance Act 1938 and thereafter surveyor appointed by insurance company had given report that there was a loss. Surveyor cum loss assessor appointed by insurance company has also quantified the damage. It is held that insurance company is under legal obligation to pay O.D claim of vehicle as quantified by surveyor cum loss assessor appointed under section 64UM(2) of Insurance Act 1938 by insurance company. It is held that insurance company could not be exonerated from liability. See 2018 (4) CPR 217 (SC) D.B titled M/s. Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. It is ordered that insurance company shall pay an amount of Rs. See 2018 (4) CPR 217 (SC) D.B titled M/s. Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. It is ordered that insurance company shall pay an amount of Rs. 95000/-(Ninety five thousand) to complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from institution of complaint till realization within 30 days after the receipt of certified copy of order of State Commission. It is further ordered that insurance company shall also pay compensation to complainant for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). It is further ordered that insurance company shall also pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. Report of surveyor cum loss assessor namely Shri Sandeep Sharma Annexure-OP6 dated 18.06.2014 shall form part and parcel of order. 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.