D.K. Tyagi, Member - (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the appellant -opposite party No. 1 against the order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi in consumer complaint No. 19 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party No. 1 -Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,24,125/ - towards damages within one month from the date of order. The facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint in brief, are that the complainant -Sh. Dayal Singh Mishrawan is the registered owner of a Tipper/Truck, bearing registration No. UK07 -CA -0141. This truck was insured with Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. -opposite party No. 1 for the period from 16.01.2010 to 15.01.2011. In the evening of 29.05.2010 the said truck, which was being driven by Sh. Ram Bahadur -driver and Sh. Subhash Kumar -conductor, met with an accident due to technical problem in which the driver & conductor of the said truck were sustained injuries. On the same day, the driver and conductor of the said vehicle were admitted in Primary Health Centre, Pratapnagar for medical treatment. Information of the said accident was telephonically given to the opposite party No. 1 -insurance company. On 02.06.2010, the insurance company appointed the surveyor, who inspected the said accidental vehicle and submitted his report to the insurance company. According to the complainant, the claim was submitted with the insurance company, but till date no payment was made against the said claim. On 05.08.2010 the insurance company repudiated the complainant's claim on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver of the said truck was not holding a valid license for driving the truck in the hilly areas. The complainant has pleaded that the surveyor appointed by the insurance company was having animosity with the complainant, who has shown the name of driver of the truck as Subhash Kumar instead of Ram Bahadur, who was plying the ill -fated vehicle. Both driver & conductor, Sh Ram Bahadur and Sh. Subhash Kumar, were injured during the accident and were admitted to the Primary Health Centre, Pratapnagar on 29.05.2010 at 9:30 p.m. for medical treatment. The complainant has filed medical slips in this regard on the record. The complainant came to know about the name of driver shown by the surveyor in the survey report when he got survey report from the office of the opposite party No. 1 -insurance company. To harm the complainant, the surveyor in collusion with the opposite party No. 1 -insurance company got license of conductor Sh. Subhash Kumar instead of driver Sh. Ram Bahadur from the complainant and submitted his survey report in arbitrary manner. The complainant is the "consumer" of the opposite parties, but the opposite party No. 1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of false and arbitrary report of surveyor. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1 -insurance company.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 -insurance company has filed the written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant Sh. Dayal Singh Mishrawan is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. UK07 -CA -0141. This vehicle was insured with the opposite party No. 1 for the period from 16.01.2010 to 15.01.2011. It is admitted to the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant had informed about the said accident of vehicle, after which the opposite party No. 1 had sent surveyor for spot survey at accident site. Expenses claimed by the complainant are not admitted. It is not admitted to the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant came to the branch office of the insurance company several times, but the fact is that the insurance company had rejected the complainant's claim because the driver of the said vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The denial/rejection of the complainant's claim is only on the basis of as per terms and conditions of the insurance contract. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. The opposite party No. 1 has no intention to harass the complainant. Para No. 14 of the consumer complaint is not admitted because under Rule 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 state that "Endorsement of certain licences for hill roads: No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a Registering Authority with a permission to drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such Registering Authority or in the case of a public service vehicle hired by tourists, by the Registering Authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangement on the point have been agreed upon". Also as per definitions (xiii) of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988, "hill road" means all roads within Pithoragarh, Almora, Chamoli, Uttarkashi and Tehri Garhwal District, Tehsil Chakrata of Dehradun District and those portions of Nainital and Garhwal District, which lie on the north of the base of foothills from Tanakpur in the east right along Kathgodam, Ramnagar in the west and all roads beyond municipal limits of Dehradun town towards Mussoorie side". Furthermore, the driver of the insured vehicle had no such endorsement on his driving license as mentioned herein above, therefore, the complainant's claim was rejected. The opposite party No. 2 -State Bank of India has filed written statement before the District Forum and has admitted the fact of ownership of vehicle as well as the accident of complainant's vehicle on 29.05.2010. It is admitted to the opposite party No. 2 that the complainant had taken a loan from Barkot branch, Uttarkashi of opposite party No. 2. In additional statement, the opposite party No. 2 has stated that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party No. 2 -branch office of State Bank of India. The complainant is the borrower of loan from the branch office of the opposite party No. 2, therefore, there is no cause of action arose against the opposite party No. 2. The complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. The complainant is not entitle to get any relief against the opposite party No. 2.
(3.) THE District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 06.11.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 1 -appellant has filed the present appeal.;