ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.07.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarkashi (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 20 of 2016, styled as Sh. Suryapal Singh Rawat Vs. Tata Capital Finance Services Limited and another, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the appellant / complainant was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that for the purposes of earning his livelihood, the appellant / complainant had purchased a JCB 3DX Backhoe Loader bearing registration No. UK10-5618, after availing finance facility from respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 (financier), which was insured with respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 2 for the period from 28.03.2013 to 27.03.2014 for sum insured of Rs. 22,50,000/-. The complainant had got the machine / vehicle registered with the Registering Authority, Uttarkashi. The complainant was awarded tender by the Public Works Department, Barkot for the natural calamity occurred during the year 2013-14 relating to slip cleaning work of the roads of Naugaon vicinity, so as to keep the traffic flowing and the complainant had deployed the JCB in execution of the awarded work. During the currency of the insurance policy, on 18.08.2013 at about 7:00 p.m., the insured machine was working at Village Bhani on Rajgarhi Motor Road, suddenly a huge boulder fell down from the hill and dashed against the insured machine, due to which, the insured machine fell in 200-300 deep gorge and got completely damaged. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged by the complainant with P.S. Barkot and intimation was also given to the financier as well as the insurance company. On the date of accident, all the documents of the machine were valid. The insurance company deputed its surveyor at the spot, who found the insured machine totally damaged. The surveyor instructed the complainant to retrieve the insured machine from the accident spot and take it to safer place, on his own expenditure. As directed by the surveyor of the insurance company, the complainant had retrieved the machine from the accident spot and kept the same at safer place on rent, on which an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been spent by the complainant. The complainant got prepared the estimate of repairs of the insured machine, wherein the estimated repair cost was reflected as Rs. 17,00,000/-. The complainant through his letter dated 13.10.2013 submitted through financier, demanded the insured amount of the machine from the insurance company, by submitting all the relevant documents. However, the insurance company vide letter dated 22.01.2014 repudiated the claim on the ground that since the machine was working in hilly area at the time of loss, hence the loss falls outside the purview of the policy, as per policy terms and conditions. After repudiation of the claim, the claim file was re-opened by the insurance company and certain documents were sought / asked for by the insurance company, which, on account of certain reasons, were submitted by the complainant with delay and the insurance company vide letter dated 05.07.2014, repudiated the claim due to non-submission of relevant details / documents by the complainant. The fact of the matter is that the claim form coupled with requisite documents were submitted with the insurance company through the financier. Thus, the consumer complaint was submitted by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. The respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 (financier) filed written statement before the District Commission and submitted that an amount of Rs. 25,14,594.76/- stands due against the complainant and no deficiency in service has been committed by the financier. We don’t feel any necessity to narrate in detail the averments made by the fin