JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, (R) President: 1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 27.02.2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.317/2015 titled Kesar Singh Versus Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Kesar Singh complainant filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is registered owner of vehicle No.HP-66-1831. It is pleaded that vehicle was driven by complainant himself to earn is livelihood. It is pleaded that vehicle in question was insured with opposite parties w.e.f. 16.04.2014 to 15.04.2015. It is pleaded that IDV valued of vehicle was Rs. 362523/-(Three lac sixty two thousand five hundred twenty three) and premium to the tune of Rs. 24146/-(Twenty four thousand one hundred forty six) was paid to opposite parties by complainant. 3. It is pleaded that on dated 29.10.2014 vehicle was loaded with wheat from Hoshiarpur to Karga (Keylong) District Lahaul and Spiti and when said vehicle was on its way from Karga (Keylong) to Mandi on 04.11.2014 after unloading the wheat and when said vehicle reached at place near Gulaba at about 1.30 A.M due to some mechanical defect the brakes of vehicle failed and said vehicle rolled down about 300 ft. from road and vehicle was totally damaged in accident. It is further pleaded that rapat was also filed in police station Manali on dated 05.11.2014 at about 9.30 A.M. It is pleaded that matter was reported to opposite parties and vehicle was inspected by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor of opposite parties on 05.11.2014. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of entire O.D claim to the tune of Rs. 362523/-(Three lac sixty two thousand five hundred twenty three) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing consumer complaint till actual payment. In addition complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) for mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) for litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that opposite parties have already paid the amount as assessed by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor to financier of complainant. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) for mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) for litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that opposite parties have already paid the amount as assessed by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor to financier of complainant. It is pleaded that claim was settled on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 230000/-(Two lac thirty thousand). It is pleaded that financier is necessary party. It is pleaded that present matter could not be disposed of in summary manner and complainant be relegated to civil court. It is admitted that complainant is registered owner of vehicle in question. It is pleaded that jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi is not disputed. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. It is pleaded that there was total loss to vehicle and complainant is legally entitled to entire IDV of vehicle mentioned in Insurance policy. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint and held that District Forum Mandi has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. 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 and whether part of cause of action accrued to complainant within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi (H.P) when hypothecation agreement relating to vehicle in question executed within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi and when Insurance company demanded papers from complainant relating to accidental vehicle in question from Mandi (H.P)? 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 Truck No.HP-66-1831. There is recital in affidavit that deponent himself used to drive vehicle in question to earn his livelihood. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was duly insured with opposite parties w.e.f. 16.04.2014 to 15.04.2015. There is recital in affidavit that IDV of vehicle was Rs. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of Truck No.HP-66-1831. There is recital in affidavit that deponent himself used to drive vehicle in question to earn his livelihood. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was duly insured with opposite parties w.e.f. 16.04.2014 to 15.04.2015. There is recital in affidavit that IDV of vehicle was Rs. 362523/-(Three lac sixty two thousand five hundred twenty three) and premium to the tune of Rs. 24146/-(Twenty four thousand one hundred forty six) was paid to opposite parties by complainant. There is recital in affidavit that on dated 29.10.2014 vehicle was loaded with wheat from Hoshiarpur to Karga (Keylong) District Lahaul and Spiti and when said vehicle was on its way from Karga (Keylong) to Mandi on 04.11.2014 after unloading the wheat and when said vehicle reached at place near Gulaba at about 1.30 A.M due to some mechanical defect the brakes of vehicle failed and said vehicle rolled down about 300 ft. from road and vehicle was totally damaged in accident. There is recital in affidavit that rapat was also filed in police station Manali on dated 05.11.2014 at about 9.30 A.M. There is recital in affidavit that claim was submitted before Insurance company but Insurance company did not settle the claim. There is recital in affidavit that there was total loss of vehicle and deponent is legally entitled for total IDV of vehicle in question. 9. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Vidya Dhar in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is proprietor of Sankat Mochan Recovery Service Ner Chowk District Mandi H.P. There is recital in affidavit that services of deponent were hired by complainant for pulling vehicle No.HP-66-1831. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was fallen down to such a location that it could not be pulled up. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has claimed an amount of Rs. 30000/-(Thirty thousand) from the complainant. 10. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Manoj Kumar in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties have already paid the amount to financier as assessed by Surveryor cum Loss Assessor to the tune of Rs. 230000/- (Two lac thirty thousand) on repair basis. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has no cause of action against Insurance company. 11. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties have already paid the amount to financier as assessed by Surveryor cum Loss Assessor to the tune of Rs. 230000/- (Two lac thirty thousand) on repair basis. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has no cause of action against Insurance company. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that findings of learned District Forum Mandi to the effect that learned District Forum Mandi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint is contrary to laws and contrary to proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the version filed by opposite parties. Opposite parties have specifically mentioned in para-7 of version that jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi is not disputed. Opposite parties did not dispute jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi in version and admitted jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi in version. It is well settled law that facts admitted in pleading by parties need not to be proved. It is also proved on record that Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. has issued letters dated 16.12.2014, 30.12.2014 and 16.01.2015 to Sh. Kesar Singh at address Village Paprahal Tehsil Sadar District Mandi Himachal Pradesh and demanded following documents from the complainant qua accidental vehicle : (1) Certified copy of FIR (2) Complete charge sheet (3) Claim form (4) Claim discharge voucher (5) Driving license of driver as per intimation (6) Repairer''s bills and estimates (7) Running record of vehicle (8)Load challan/ invoice of material at the time of accident. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of the fact that Sriram General Insurance Company has demanded the documents from complainant qua accidental vehicle and issued letters to complainant at address Village Paprahal Tehsil Sadar District Mandi Himachal Pradesh it is held that part of cause of action to file consumer complaint accrued to complainant within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi (H.P). 12. State Commission has carefully perused Insurance policy issued by opposite parties relating to vehicle in question annexure-A2. There is recital in Insurance policy itself that vehicle in question was hypothecated with Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi (H.P). State Commission is of the opinion that Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi is sister branch of opposite parties. 12. State Commission has carefully perused Insurance policy issued by opposite parties relating to vehicle in question annexure-A2. There is recital in Insurance policy itself that vehicle in question was hypothecated with Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi (H.P). State Commission is of the opinion that Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi is sister branch of opposite parties. As per law hypothecation of vehicle means pledging of vehicle as security for loan amount advanced to loanee by loaner. It is proved on record that as per Insurance policy annexure-A2 that hypothecation agreement was executed with Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi and hypothecation clause has been recorded in Insurance policy itself. In view of the fact that hypothecation clause has been mentioned in original Insurance policy itself State Commission is of the opinion that part of cause of action accrued to complainant within territorial jurisdiction of Mandi (H.P) when hypothecation agreement was incorporated in original Insurance policy issued by opposite party. Insurance company sue moto incorporated hypothecation agreement as part of original Insurance policy. 13. State Commission is of the opinion that ruling relied by learned District Forum D.B titled Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company, (2010) 1 SCC 135 is distinguishable in the present matter because in matter of Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company vehicle in question was not hypothecated within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum but in the present matter vehicle in question was hypothecated with Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi within the jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi and opposite parties have incorporated hypothecation agreement of complainant with Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi in original Insurance policy. Even Insurance company has demanded papers of accidental vehicle from complainant from Mandi (H.P). It is held that part of cause of action against Insurance company falls within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi Himachal Pradesh. It is well settled law that party could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time and State Commission is of the opinion that contents of Insurance policy should be read as a whole and should not be read in isolation in order to defeat right of complainant. 14. It is well settled law that party could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time and State Commission is of the opinion that contents of Insurance policy should be read as a whole and should not be read in isolation in order to defeat right of complainant. 14. Opposite parties have admitted that they have sought the report of Surveyor cum Loss Assessor appointed under section 64UM(2) of Insurance Act 1938 but Insurance company did not file affidavit of Surveyor cum Loss Assessor in order to prove contents of Loss Assessment Report. It is well settled law that contents of controversial document should be proved by way of affidavit of a person who has signed the controversial document. No reason assigned as to why Insurance company did not file affidavit of Surveyor cum Loss Assessor appointed under Insurance Act 1938. Adverse inference is drawn against Insurance company for non filing affidavit of Surveyor cum Loss Assessor. 15. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that report of Surveyor cum Loss Assessor was sent to complainant for filing representation against report of Surveyor cum Loss Assessor. State Commission is of the opinion that Insurance company has committed deficiency in service by way of not supplying assessment report of Surveyor cum Loss Assessor to complainant. See Khatan Haji Ibrahim Rumi Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, 2018 2 CLT 516 NC . 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable compensation from opposite parties for mental agony and harassment. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has engaged Advocate before learned District Forum Mandi and has also incurred litigation expenses. Complainant did not place on record Advocate fee receipt. It is held that complainant is entitled for reasonable litigation costs. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Complainant did not place on record Advocate fee receipt. It is held that complainant is entitled for reasonable litigation costs. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Opposite parties have specifically mentioned in version that jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi is not disputed. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties could not be allowed to take two contradictory stands in quasi judicial proceedings. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings and it is also well settled law that in quasi judicial proceedings approbate and reprobate is not permissible. See R.N. Gosain Versus Yashpal Dhir, (1993) AIR SC 352 . 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that an amount to the tune of Rs. 230000/-(Two lac thirty thousand) already stood paid to financier namely Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi and dispute inter se parties stood finally settled and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that Insurance company did not place on record any document signed by complainant wherein complainant has admitted claim as full and final settlement. It is held that unilateral deposit of amount by Insurance company does not fall within concept of full and final settlement inter se parties. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that Financier is necessary party is decided accordingly. Complainant did not seek any relief against financier in relief clause. Hence it is held that financier is not necessary party. 21. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that complicated facts are involved and complainant be relegated to civil court is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that present consumer complaint could be disposed of properly and effectively under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to relegate complainant to civil court. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 22. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by complainant is partly allowed and order of learned District Forum is set aside. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 22. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by complainant is partly allowed and order of learned District Forum is set aside. It is ordered that complainant shall submit NOC from financier namely Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi to opposite parties and thereafter opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay O.D claim of vehicle in question to complainant to the tune of Rs. 362523/- (Three lac sixty two thousand five hundred twenty three) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till actual payment minus amount already paid. It is further ordered that if complainant shall not produce NOC from financier i.e. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi Himachal Pradesh then opposite parties shall transmit O.D claim in the loan account of complainant kept by Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi H.P. after adjusting amount already paid if any in loan account of complainant kept by Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Mandi. 23. It is further ordered that opposite parties shall jointly and severally also pay compensation to complainant for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand). It is further ordered that opposite parties shall also pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). Complainant shall also execute subrogation deed in favour of Insurance company relating to salvage of vehicle in question and complainant will also transfer R.C. in the name of Insurance company within thirty days after receipt of certified copy of order of State Commission. Entire process will be completed by parties within one month after receipt of certified copy of order of State Commission. 24. Insurance policy annexure-A2 and letters dated 16.12.2014, 30.12.2014 and 16.01.2015 issued by Insurance company to complainant as per address of Mandi (H.P) 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.