ORDER : P.S. Rana, President 1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 07.08.2018 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No. 09/2018 titled Rukmani v. The Oriental Insurance Company Lid. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Complainant Smt. Rukmani filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant is owner of vehicle No. HP-46-1067 Tractor and same was insured with opposite party w.e.f. 07.06.2015 to 06.06.2016. It is pleaded that on dated 15.05.2016 at about 7.00 AM at place Mehla vehicle in question due to steep road stopped and then rolled back and fell into deep gorge and sustained extensive damage. It is pleaded that premium was paid to Insurance Company and IDV of vehicle in question assessed by Insurance Company is to the tune of Rs. 305052/- (Three lac five thousand fifty two). It is further pleaded that Insurance Company received premium from complainant to the tune of Rs. 18739/- (Eighteen thousand seven hundred thirty nine). It is further pleaded that Insurance claim was Submitted before Insurance Company but Insurance Company did not pay Insurance claim and repudiated the Insurance claim in an illegal manner and committed deficiency in service. It is pleaded that vehicle was repaired and an amount of Rs. 269700/- (Two lac sixty nine thousand seven hundred) was spent by complainant for repair of vehicle in question. 3. Complainant sought relief to the effect that Insurance Company be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 269700/- (Two lac sixty nine thousand seven hundred) to complainant as O.D claim of vehicle in question. In addition complainant sought relief to the effect that Insurance Company be directed to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand). In addition complainant sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file present consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to file present consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that driver namely Sh. Vijay Kumar was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is pleaded that vehicle in question was registered as commercial vehicle. It is pleaded that complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to file present consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that driver namely Sh. Vijay Kumar was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is pleaded that vehicle in question was registered as commercial vehicle. It is pleaded that vehicle in question was driven in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance policy. It is further pleaded that no valid route permit was granted relating to vehicle in question at the time of accident. It is further pleaded that Insurance Company appointed Surveyor cum Loss Assessor and Surveyor cum Loss Assessor has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 80271/- (Eighty thousand two hundred seventy one) on repair basis. It is pleaded that Insurance Company did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 5. Learned DCF/DCC partly allowed consumer complaint and directed Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 305052/- (Three lac five thousand fifty two) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment. In addition learned DCF/DCC ordered Insurance Company to pay compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) for mental harassment. In addition learned DCF/DCC ordered Insurance Company to pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand). Learned DCF/DCC also directed complainant to transfer RC of vehicle in question in favour of Insurance Company. Learned DCF/DCC further ordered complainant to hand over salvage of vehicle in question to Insurance Company within forty five days failing which Insurance Company would be at liberty to deduct salvage value of vehicle. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned DCF/DCC Oriental Insurance Company 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 Oriental Insurance Company is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether loss assessment report submitted by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor under section 64UM of Statutory Insurance Act 1938 is substantial piece of evidence for adjudication of Insurance claim unless contrary is proved? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed her affidavit in evidence. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed her affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of vehicle No. HP-46-1067 Tractor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent purchased vehicle in question to earn her livelihood by means of self employment. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle in question was insured with Oriental Insurance Company w.e.f. 07.06.2015 to 06.06.2016. There is recital in affidavit that premium was also paid to Insurance Company. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle met with accident on dated 15.05.2016 during operation of Insurance policy. There is recital in affidavit that deponent repaired the vehicle in question and spent an amount of Rs. 269700/- (Two lac sixty nine thousand seven hundred). There is recital in-affidavit that Insurance claim was submitted to Insurance Company but Insurance Company did not settle claim. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant. 9. Insurance company filed affidavit of Sh. Karam Singh Sr. Divisional Manager. There is recital in affidavit that Tractor in question was insured with opposite party w.e.f. 07.06.2015 to 06.06.2016. There is recital in affidavit that driver namely Sh. Vijay Kumar was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle in question was driven without route permit in violation of terms & conditions of Insurance policy. There is recital in affidavit that Insurance claim was filed by complainant and Insurance Company appointed Surveyor cum Loss Assessor. There is recital in affidavit that Surveyor cum Loss Assessor has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 80271/- (Eighty thousand two hundred seventy one) on repair basis. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle in question was driven without route permit. 10. Insurance company also filed affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Surveyor cum Loss Assessor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is Surveyor cum Loss Assessor having licence issued by IRDA. There is recital in affidavit that deponent applied to RTO Chamba (H.P) for verification of receipt dated 19.02.2016 issued to complainant by RTO Chamba. There is recital in affidavit that RTO has supplied verification report with the remark that an amount of Rs. 870/- (Eight hundred seventy) was deposited by complainant as permit fee of vehicle in question on dated 19.02.2016. 11. Insurance company also filed affidavit of Sh. There is recital in affidavit that RTO has supplied verification report with the remark that an amount of Rs. 870/- (Eight hundred seventy) was deposited by complainant as permit fee of vehicle in question on dated 19.02.2016. 11. Insurance company also filed affidavit of Sh. Arun Udhey Singh Surveyor cum Loss Assessor. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is Surveyor cum Loss Assessor appointed under IRDA. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has assessed loss occurred to vehicle in question and assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 80271/- (Eighty thousand two hundred seventy one) on repair basis. There is recital in affidavit that survey report submitted by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor be read as part and parcel of affidavit. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by Insurance Company. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company that at the time of accident driver namely Sh. Vijay Kumar was not holding valid driving licence and on this ground appeal filed by Insurance Company be allowed is decided accordingly. Insurance Company has appointed two surveyors namely Sh. Rakesh and Sh. Arun Udhey Singh registered under Statutory Insurance Act 1938. Both the Surveyors have submitted driver particulars and both the Surveyors have mentioned in their report that Sh. Vijay Kumar was holding LMV Tractor and Motorcycle licence which was operative w.e.f. 07.03.2011 to 06.03.2031. Both the Surveyors have specifically mentioned in their report that category of vehicle in question was LTV and unladen weight of vehicle in question was 3160 Kgs and laden weight of vehicle in question was 4660 Kgs. State Commission is of the opinion that driver having LMV licence is legally competent to ply LTV vehicle. See 2008(3) SCC 464 , National Insurance Company v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others. Even as per section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 LMV means a transport vehicle unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500/- Kgs: In view of above stated facts it is held that vehicle in question was driven by competent driver at the time of accident in view of ruling cited supra. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company that at the time of accident no valid route permit was issued qua vehicle in question and on this ground appeal filed by Insurance Company be allowed is decided accordingly. Sh. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company that at the time of accident no valid route permit was issued qua vehicle in question and on this ground appeal filed by Insurance Company be allowed is decided accordingly. Sh. Rakesh Surveyor cum Loss Assessor registered under Insurance Act 1938 has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that Registering Authority RTO Chamba (H,P) has submitted verification report that complainant applied for renewal of route permit of vehicle in question and deposited an amount of Rs. 870/- (Eight hundred seventy) as route permit fee on dated 19.02.2016. In view of the fact that complainant deposited route permit fee in office of RTO Chamba H.P on dated 19.02.2016 and in view of fact that at the time of accident request of complainant for issuance of route permit was lis pendens before RTO Chamba (H.P) Authority State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to penalize complainant due to laxity of RTO Chamba (H.P). 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company that Sh. Arun Udhey Singh Surveyor cum Loss Assessor appointed under section 64UM of Statutory Insurance Act 1938 has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 80271/- (Eighty thousand two hundred seventy one) and learned DCF/DCC has granted excessive O.D. vehicle claim and on this ground appeal filed by Insurance Company be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that Sh. Arun Udhey Surveyor cum Loss Assessor has submitted damaged assessment report qua vehicle in question under section 64UM of Statutory Insurance Act 1938 and assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 80271/- (Eighty thousand two hundred seventy one). Complainant did not send any interrogatories to Sh. Arun Udhey Singh Surveyor cum Loss Assessor. Complainant also did not submit any counter damaged assessment report qua vehicle in question and there is no evidence on record in order to prove that Sh. Arun Udhey has hostile animus against complainant at any point of time. In view of above stated facts State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to grant O.D. claim of vehicle in question as assessed by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor namely Sh. Arun Udhey Singh. 15. In view of above stated facts State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to grant O.D. claim of vehicle in question as assessed by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor namely Sh. Arun Udhey Singh. 15. It is well settled law that report submitted by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor under section 64UM of Statutory Insurance Act 1938 is substantial piece of evidence and due credence should be given to the report submitted by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor. See 2012(1) CPJ 420 NC, H.C. Saxena v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. See 2012(4) CPJ 103 NC, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jyothi Tobacco Traders. See 2009(3) CPJ 194 NC, Nand Kishore Jaiswal v. National Insurance Company Ltd. See 2009 (1) CPC 166 NC, Pradeep Kumar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. See 2010(3) CPJ 401 NC, New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa Chhabra. See 2018 (1) CPR 311 NC, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jagdish Chand Gupta. See 2010(1) CPC 696 NC, Champa Lal Verma v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company that learned DCF/DCC has granted excessive compensation for mental agony to complainant to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) and on this ground appeal filed by Insurance Company be allowed is decided accordingly. Oriental Insurance Company did not pay Insurance claim as assessed by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor appointed under section 64UM of Statutory Insurance Act 1938 and State Commission is of the opinion that learned DCF/DCC has granted equitable compensation to complainant for mental harassment and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in compensation order. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company that learned DCF/DCC has granted excessive litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) and on this ground appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has engaged Advocate and has also paid litigation costs & other expenses and learned DCF/DCC has granted equitable litigation costs to complainant. 18. 5000/- (Five thousand) and on this ground appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has engaged Advocate and has also paid litigation costs & other expenses and learned DCF/DCC has granted equitable litigation costs to complainant. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned DCF/DCC is in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts and does not warrant any interference by State Commission is decided accordingly. Complainant did not file any counter damaged surveyor report of vehicle in question and damaged assessment report of vehicle in question submitted by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor appointed by Oriental Insurance Company remained unrebutted on record. Even complainant did not file affidavit of person who had issued controversial repair bills of vehicle in question. It is well settled law that controversial documents should be proved by way of affidavit of persons who had signed controversial documents. See 2019(1) Himachal Law Reporter H.P. High Court 294 titled Shaminder Kumar Chaudhary v. Sukhdev Chand and others. See Latest HLJ 2017 H.P High Court 1011 titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Champa Devi and others. In view of above stated facts and case laws cited supra point No. 1 is partly answered in yes and partly answered in no. Point No. 2: Final Order 19. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company is partly allowed. It is ordered that Oriental Insurance Company shall pay O.D. claim of vehicle in question to the tune of Rs. 80271/- (Eighty thousand two hundred seventy one) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from date of institution of complaint till actual payment as assessed by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor appointed under section 64UM of Statutory Insurance Act 1938. 20. Order of learned DCF/DCC that Oriental Insurance Company would pay compensation to complainant for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) is affirmed. Order of learned DCF/DCC that Oriental Insurance Company would pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) is also affirmed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is modified accordingly. 21. Insurance policy Annexure-R4 and report submitted by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor namely Sh. Rakesh Vaid Annexure-R-7 and report submitted by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor namely Sh. Order of learned DCF/DCC that Oriental Insurance Company would pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) is also affirmed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is modified accordingly. 21. Insurance policy Annexure-R4 and report submitted by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor namely Sh. Rakesh Vaid Annexure-R-7 and report submitted by Surveyor cum Loss Assessor namely Sh. Arun Udhey Singh Annexure-R-9 submitted under section 64UM of Statutory Insurance Act 1938 shall form part and parcel of order. 22. Certified copy of order be sent to learned DCF/DCC for information 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. Due to winter vacation of State Commission w.e.f. 11.01.2020 to 23.02.2020 and due to country wide lockdown on account of Corona virus appeal is decided today. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.