ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pauri Garhwal (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 07 of 2016 styled as Sh. Rajendra Singh Negi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., wherein and whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No. UK12-D-1018 (Earth Moving Machine, L & T case 770 SS Loader, Backhole) (in short ‘machine’). The said machine was insured with the opposite party – National Insurance Company Ltd. under policy No. 462202/31/15/6300000444 valid for the period from 30.04.2015 to 29.04.2015. According to the complainant, on dated 14.08.2015 at about 11:00a.m. while the insured machine was being operated at Bunga Road, Bichla Badalpur, the road / roadside suddenly gave away (pushta damage), as a result of which the said machine fell approximately 500mtrs. into a deep gorge and was totally damaged. The driver / operator jumped out from the said machine and saved his life. Accident was immediately reported to the opposite party. A surveyor was appointed and spot was inspected on dated 15.08.2015. The accident was also reported to the Revenue Police. The said machine was being operated by Sh. Geetendra Singh, who was holding a valid and an effective driving license No. UK1520060019211 which was valid from 09.11.2012 to 08.11.2015, which means that his license was valid as on the date of accident, i.e. 14.08.2015. All other documents related to the machine were also valid at the time of accident. The complainant supplied all the related documents including Registration Certificate, insurance policy and driving license and requested the opposite party to conduct a final survey and settled the claim. The complainant alleged that despite the existence of valid insurance policy and occurrence of accidental loss during policy period, the opposite party failed to settle the claim and ultimately repudiated it on the ground that the policy did not provide over turning risk cover and that no separate premium had been paid for such cover. The complainant being aggrieved by repudiation of his claim, instituted a complaint case before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The opposite party in its written statement admitted the issuance of insurance policy and contended that the complaint was false, misconceived and not maintainable. It was pleaded that the dispute was of a nature which was required to be adjudicated by a competent civil court. The answering opposite party further contended that although the machine was insured, the loss claimed by the complainant was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. According to the opposite party, the machine had fallen into a deep gorge while being operated on the road and the loss was consequence of overturning, which was not covered under the policy. The opposite party relied upon the policy condition IMT-47, and contended that the loss or damage resulting from overturning arising out of operation of such machinery as a tool, was excluded unless additional premium for such risk had been paid. It was also contended that no separate premium had been paid by the complainant for overturning risk cover. The opposite party has also alleged that the driver’s / operator’s license was not valid at the time of accident and the machine was not being used in accordance with terms and conditions of the policy. On these grounds, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has passed the impugne