ORDER

Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II—This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Almora (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 05 of 2016 styled as Sh. Himmat Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein and whereby the complaint was disallowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. UK01-CA-0233 which was insured with the opposite party – insurance company for the period from 30.01.2013 to 29.01.2014 for the sum assured Rs. 3,56,000/-; an accident took place on dated 22.12.2013 in order to save leopard whereas the vehicle in question was being driven by the driver Sh. Rajendra Singh alias Rajan Singh cautiously and in moderate speed. In the said accident, the vehicle in question slipped, rolling down and fell into a deep ditch, resulting to the death of Sh. Anil Nath S/o Sh. Jagdish Nath, who had booked the vehicle in question for taking Piko Machine from Danya to village Siraula. In the said accident, one other person Sh. Anil Nath was also declared deceased. The complainant was neither present at the time of accident, nor seen the alleged accident. The information of the accident was immediately given to the police concerned and the opposite party - insurance company. His claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the basis of travelling of seven persons sitting inside the goods carrier vehicle. Hence, the complaint was submitted before the District Commission for getting the insurance claim.

3. The complaint case was denied by the opposite party – insurance company alleging that seven persons were sitting inside the vehicle in question ‘Goods Carrier Vehicle’ violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence the repudiation order of the claim of the complainant is justified and valid; the complainant is not entitled to get any insurance amount, hence it is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order on dated 15.03.2016 wherein it is held as under:—

“(Matter in Other Language)”

5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the District Commission, the complainant as appellant has preferred the present appeal. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the alleged accident took place only in order to save a leopard and the driver of the vehicle in question tried to control the vehicle in question, but due to sudden coming of the leopard, the driver lost his control, therefore, the accident has occurred. It is further averred that at the time of accident, the insured vehicle was booked by the deceased Sh. Anil Nath for taking his piko machine. The other deceased person was a pedestrian, who got injury during the course of rolling down of the insured vehicle. He was neither a passenger, nor sitting inside the vehicle in question, hence the finding of the District Commission below is erroneous that the vehicle in question was over-loaded and the said finding is not justified and is without facts and evidence on record.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available before us.

7. We have perused the impugned judgment wherein the District Commission below has held that at the time of accident neither the piko machine was brought in the insured vehicle, nor was it recovered from the spot by the police, hence the story alleged by the appellant – complainant is not genuine and not supported with the cogent evidence. Therefore, the District Commission has hold that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thereby dismissed the consumer complaint.

8. During the course of arguments, the