ORDER : P.S. Rana, President 1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 08.06.2017 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No. 22/2014 titled Heera Singh and others v. M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru and others. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Complainants filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainants are residents of Tehsil Chirgaon District Shimla (H.P.) and are orchardists by profession. It is pleaded that complainants hired services of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for transportation of their Apple produce on dated 06.09.2013. It is pleaded that consignment was of 349 boxes from Kharot/Chiwadi to M/s. R.B. Ludhiana Punjab. It is pleaded that boxes of apple were of highest grade @ Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand) per box. It Is further pleaded that apple boxes in question at the time of entrustment were insured by M/s. Truck Operator Union for any loss in transit @ Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) per box. It is pleaded that truck No. PB-65D-7535 was provided by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and transportation work was allotted to Sh. Harjinder Singh opposite party No. 2 owner cum driver by opposite party No. 1. It is pleaded that on 06.09.2013 vehicle met with accident near Tikkari Kainchi. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 shifted consignment in some other vehicle and apple boxes in question were sold by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in the market @ Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand) per box. It is pleaded that sale was carried out by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 without knowledge of complainants. It is pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Complainants sought relief for payment of Rs. 698000/- (Six lac ninety eight thousand) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 06.09.2013 till date of payment. In addition complainants sought payment of Rs. 200000/- (Two lac) as damages for mental harassment and financial loss. In addition complainants sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs.30000/- (Thirty thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) pleaded therein that apple boxes in question were insured @ Rs. 350/- (Three hundred fifty) per box. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) pleaded therein that apple boxes in question were insured @ Rs. 350/- (Three hundred fifty) per box. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 1 is ready to pay Rs. 350/- (Three hundred fifty) per box for loss of 350 apple boxes but complainants did not collect the amount. It is pleaded that complicated facts are involved in present consumer complaint and complainants be relegated to civil court for adjudication of dispute. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte by learned DCF/DCC on dated 24.03.2014. 5. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3 pleaded therein that no insurance claim has been given in the present matter to any of the party by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is further pleaded that Sh. C.R. Azta was appointed as Surveyor cum Loss Assessor by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. in the present matter and claim was repudiated and was not found genuine claim. It is pleaded that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 6. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 4 pleaded therein that forwarding agent through whom apple consignment was forwarded by complainants has not been impleaded as co-party in present consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complainants have no cause of action against opposite party No. 4. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 7. Complainants filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission dismissed consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned DCF/DCC complainants filed present appeal before State Commission. 8. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 9. 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: 10. 8. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 9. 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: 10. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainants before learned DCF/DCC tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Heera Singh and stated that annexures-C1 to C5 already filed be read in evidence and closed the evidence. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has given statement before learned DCF/DCC on dated 26.04.2014 that version alongwith affidavit already filed be read in evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 3 has given statement on dated 03.03.2016 that version alongwith affidavit already filed be read in evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 4 has given statement on 26.04.2016 that version alongwith affidavit already filed be read in evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 4. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainants that complainants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 698000/- (Six lac ninety eight thousand) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 06.09.2013 till the date of payment is decided accordingly. Complainants did not adduce any independent evidence on record by way of affidavits of independent witness in order to prove that value of apple boxes in question was to the tune of Rs. 698000/- (Six lac ninety eight thousand). In the absence of corroborative independent evidence that value of apple boxes in question was to the tune of Rs. 698000/- (Six lac ninety eight thousand) plea of complainants that value of apple boxes in question was to the tune of Rs. 698000/- (Six lac ninety eight thousand) is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). Sole affidavit of complainant No. 1 Shri Heera Singh is not sufficient because affidavit filed by complainant No. 1 is rebutted by opposite party No. 1 by way of counter affidavit. 12. Opposite party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) in version has offered to pay a sum of Rs. Sole affidavit of complainant No. 1 Shri Heera Singh is not sufficient because affidavit filed by complainant No. 1 is rebutted by opposite party No. 1 by way of counter affidavit. 12. Opposite party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) in version has offered to pay a sum of Rs. 350/- (Three hundred fifty) per box to complainants for loss of 350 apple boxes. State Commission is of the opinion that offer of M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) in version for payment of amount of Rs. 350/- (Three hundred fifty) per box is binding upon M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P). 13. State Commission has also perused police report annexure-C3 placed on record signed by SHO Police Station Chirgaon District Shimla (H.P). There is recital in police report annexure-C3 that truck driver namely Sh. Harjinder Singh was not at fault at the time of accident because accident was caused due to sinking of road. State Commission is of the opinion that sinking of road was due to natural calamity. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that accident took place due to fault of driver of vehicle in question. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainants that complainants are legally entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 200000/- (Two lac) for mental agony and harassment is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainants are legally entitled for equitable compensation because opposite party No. 1 has not paid the amount @ Rs. 350/- (Three hundred fifty) per box for the loss of 350 apple boxes by way of any cheque or draft to complainants as of today despite written offer in version filed by opposite party No. 1. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainants that complainants are legally entitled for litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 30000/- (Thirty thousand) is decided accordingly. Complainants did not place on record any Advocate fee receipt. However complainants have engaged Advocate before learned DCF/DCC and complainants have also paid litigation costs. State Commission is of the opinion that complainants are legally entitled for equitable litigation costs from opposite party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) who has given written offer in version. 16. However complainants have engaged Advocate before learned DCF/DCC and complainants have also paid litigation costs. State Commission is of the opinion that complainants are legally entitled for equitable litigation costs from opposite party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) who has given written offer in version. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 4 and opposite party No. 3 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. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party No. 1, i.e. M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) has offered payment of Rs. 350/- (Three hundred fifty) per box for loss of 350 boxes voluntarily and M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) is under legal obligation to comply offer mentioned in version voluntarily. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2; Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal filed by appellants is partly allowed against opposite party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) only. Appeal filed against opposite parties No. 2, 3 & 4 is dismissed. It is ordered that opposite party No. 1, i.e. M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) shall pay an amount of Rs. 122500/- (One lac twenty two thousand five hundred) to complainants proportionately alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from date of institution of complaint till actual payment as per apple boxes consignment of each complainant. 18. It is further ordered that in addition M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) shall also pay compensation to complainants in equal shares to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand). It is further ordered that M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P) shall pay litigation costs to complainants in equal shares to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand). M/s. Truck Operator Union Rohru Shimla (H.P.) shall comply order of State Commission within thirty days after receipt of certified copy of order. Other reliefs sought by complainants are declined in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice. 19. File of learned DCF/DCC alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Other reliefs sought by complainants are declined in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice. 19. File of learned DCF/DCC 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 applications if any also disposed of.