ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President—This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 45 of 2015, styled as Sh. Anand Singh Dhaila Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,71,000/- to respondent/complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till actual payment as well as Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the respondent/complainant was the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No. UA04-B-2628. The permit of the vehicle was valid upto 26.03.2015 and the vehicle was being plied on all the routes of Haldwani Zone. The subject vehicle was purchased by the complainant for sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-, after taking loan from HDFC Bank. On dated 19.05.2013, an accident took place, when the insured vehicle dashed against a tree. At the time of accident, 29 persons including driver and conductor were sitting in the insured vehicle. In the accident, 14-15 persons sustained injuries, to whom first aid was provided and the insured vehicle was badly damaged. The intimation of the accident was immediately given to the insurance company, who appointed surveyor. The surveyor of the insurance company visited the site. The vehicle was taken out from the accident site and was brought to Haldwani by help of crane. The vehicle was again inspected by the surveyor at the workshop/garage. The complainant had spent an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- in the repair of the vehicle, whereafter the vehicle was re-inspected. The complainant had submitted the claim form along with the requisite repair bills with the insurance company. Through letter dated 18.03.2014 issued by the insurance company, the complainant was informed that his claim has been repudiated on account of overloading of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The complainant issued legal notice to the insurance company, explaining that the First Information Report was lodged on hearsay basis, whereas at the time of occurrence, only 27 passengers including driver and conductor were sitting in the vehicle within the permitted seating capacity of the vehicle as 30 in all. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company is not justified and the same is without any cogent and reliable evidence. By repudiating the claim of the complainant, the insurance company has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the consumer complaint was submitted by the complainant before the District Commission, praying for grant of reliefs mentioned therein.

3. The appellant/opposite party (insurance company) filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that as per the survey report, the insurance company is liable only for the payment of Rs. 54,200/- subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance company has filed the police report as well as survey report, who have found that at the time of accident, the vehicle was overloaded and the owner of the vehicle has given false information to the insurance company regarding his claim, which is clear concealment of fact. The insurance company has conducted investigation and the investigator has also found that as per the newspaper publication and F.I.R., there were more than 35 passengers sitting in the vehicle at the time of accident. It was further pleaded that the survey was carried out by an independent surveyor, who has assessed the loss occasioned to the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As per settled law, the survey report is an important piece of evidence, which can not be ignored or disbelieved, unless proved otherwise. The insuran