ORDER (Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member): 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. 2. 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. 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. 3. 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. 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. 4. 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 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. 5. 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. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party No. 1, respondent No. 1-complainant and respondent No. 2-opposite party No. 2 and have also perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not having driving license to drive the vehicle on hill roads, which is clear violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as violation of Motor Vehicle Act. The appellant had repudiated the claim of the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the driver concerned was not authorized to drive the vehicle in hill areas and he does not have hill road endorsement on his driving license on the date of accident. Learned counsel also submitted that at the time of accident Sh. Subhash Kumar was the driver, who was driving the vehicle and had no endorsement in his driving license to drive the vehicle in hill areas. The name of driver in the claim form is also Sh. Subhash Kumar. Therefore, the appellant has rightly repudiated the claim of respondent No. 1. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that his driver Sh. Ram Bahadur was driving the vehicle bearing No. UK07-CA-0141 alongwith his companion Sh. Subhash Kumar, who was the conductor in the same. This vehicle met with an accident on 29.05.2010 near Pratapnagar due to locking of the steering-wheel resulting falling down the vehicle in deep gorge. The driver Sh. Ram Bahadur and conductor/helper Sh. Subhash Kumar sustained injuries and were admitted in the nearby Primary Health Centre, Pratapnagar, where they were treated by the doctor. The doctor of Primary Health Centre, Pratapnagar has also issued certificate regarding the admission in Primary Health Centre for medical treatment of both driver and conductor of the accidented vehicle. The driver Sh. Ram Bahadur and conductor/helper Sh. Subhash Kumar sustained injuries and were admitted in the nearby Primary Health Centre, Pratapnagar, where they were treated by the doctor. The doctor of Primary Health Centre, Pratapnagar has also issued certificate regarding the admission in Primary Health Centre for medical treatment of both driver and conductor of the accidented vehicle. Admission slips of driver Sh. Ram Bahadur and conductor/helper Sh. Subhash Kumar, issued by Primary Health Centre, Pratapnagar already filed by the respondent No. 1, which show that both the persons were injured in the said accident. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent No. 1-Sh. Dayal Singh Mishrawan, owner of the vehicle, as well as the driver Sh. Ram Bahadur, who was plying the vehicle, have filed their affidavits before the District Forum. Sh. Ram Bahadur-driver in his affidavit deposed on oath that at the time of accident, he was driving the vehicle and at that time he was holding a valid driving license with endorsement of driving the vehicle in the hill areas also. 8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent No. 1 is the owner of the tipper/truck bearing registration No. UK07-CA-0141. There is also no dispute that the said truck met with an accident on 29.05.2010 near Pratapnagar. The respondent No. 1 has stated in his consumer complaint that at the time of said accident, his driver Sh. Ram Bahadur alongwith conductor/helper Sh. Subhash Kumar were present in the truck, who sustained injuries and after accident they were admitted in the nearby Primary Health Centre, Pratapnagar, where medical treatment was given to them. The appellant in its written statement has not denied the fact that at the time of accident Sh. Ram Bahadur and conductor/helper Sh. Subhash Kumar were present in the truck/tipper. 9. From the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent No. 1 has categorically stated in the consumer complaint that on 29.05.2010 driver Sh. Ram Bahadur alongwith conductor Sh. Subhash Kumar were present in his truck. While the driver Sh. Ram Bahadur was driving this vehicle near Pratapnagar, due to locking of steering wheel this vehicle met with an accident and both driver Sh. Ram Bahadur and conductor/helper Sh. Subhash Kumar sustained injuries. This vehicle fell down in deep gorge. Ram Bahadur alongwith conductor Sh. Subhash Kumar were present in his truck. While the driver Sh. Ram Bahadur was driving this vehicle near Pratapnagar, due to locking of steering wheel this vehicle met with an accident and both driver Sh. Ram Bahadur and conductor/helper Sh. Subhash Kumar sustained injuries. This vehicle fell down in deep gorge. Driver as well as conductor/helper were admitted in nearby Primary Health Centre, Pratapnagar at 9:30 p.m. on the same day. The respondent No. 1 has filed his affidavit (Paper Nos. 20kh/1 to 20kh/3 on the District Forum’s record) and driver Sh. Ram Bahadur has also filed his affidavit (Paper No. 21kh on the District Forum’s record). Both respondent No. 1 as well as driver Sh. Ram Bahadur have deposed on oath that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Ram Bahadur, driver and this vehicle was met with an accident due to technical defect in the steering. Contrary to it Sh. Piyush Shankar, Manager (Law) of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.-appellant has filed his affidavit (Paper Nos. 27kh/1 to 27kh/2 on the District Forum’s record) in evidence, but he has not dared to controvert the fact that the said truck was being driven by driver-Sh. Ram Bahadur and not by one Sh. Subhash Kumar. The respondent No. 1 in his affidavit has also stated on oath in para No. 7 that the surveyor of the appellant-insurance company was having animosity with the respondent No. 1 and he had written the name of driver as Sh. Subhash Kumar instead of driver Sh. Ram Bahadur. In fact Sh. Ram Bahadur was respondent No. 1-complainant’s driver, who was driving the vehicle alongwith the conductor/helper Sh. Subhash Kumar. This fact has not been controverted in the affidavit filed by the appellant in evidence before the District Forum. 10. The respondent No. 1 has filed two OPD slips of Sh. Ram Bahadur, driver and Sh. Subhash Kumar, conductor (Paper Nos. 4kh/13 to 4kh/14 on the District Forum’s record). A certificate issued by the Medical Officer Incharge of P.H.C., Pratapnagar, Tehri Garhwal has also been filed by the respondent No. 1 (4kh/12 on the District Forum’s record) which clearly shows that the driver Sh. Ram Bahadur and conductor Sh. Subhash Kumar were present in the ill-fated truck of respondent No. 1 and this vehicle met with an accident on 29.05.2010 near Pratapnagar. Ram Bahadur and conductor Sh. Subhash Kumar were present in the ill-fated truck of respondent No. 1 and this vehicle met with an accident on 29.05.2010 near Pratapnagar. These two persons namely Sh. Ram Bahadur and Sh. Subhash Kumar sustained injuries in the said accident and they were admitted in the nearby Primary Health Centre, Pratapnagar for medical treatment. The certificate of Medical Officer Incharge, P.H.C., Pratapnagar clearly indicates that both driver and conductor were admitted in this Primary Health Centre for medical treatment on 29.05.2010 at 9:30 p.m. The respondent No. 1 had submitted an affidavit to the appellant-insurance company which is at paper No. 4kh/11 on the District Forum’s record, explaining the fact that at the time of accident driver Sh. Ram Bahadur was driving the vehicle and Sh. Subhash Kumar, conductor was also present in the vehicle with the driver. This fact has not been specifically controverted by Sh. Piyush Shankar, Manager (Law) of the appellant-insurance company. Furthermore in this affidavit (Paper No. 4kh/11 on the District Forum’s record) the respondent No. 1 has deposed that no F.I.R. was lodged with the revenue police regarding the accident because for last one year the revenue police had boycotted the work of police. This fact has also not controverted by Sh. Piyush Shankar, Manager of the appellant-insurance company. The respondent No. 1 and his driver Sh. Ram Bahadur have also filed their affidavits and specifically deposed on oath that on 29.05.2010, driver Sh. Ram Bahadur was driving the tipper/truck bearing registration No. UK07-CA-0141 and his companion Sh. Subhash Kumar, conductor was also with him, when the steering of the vehicle got locked, due to which the vehicle fell down in the gorge resulting injuries to the driver as well as the conductor. The respondent No. 1 has also deposed in his affidavit that the surveyor of the insurance company-appellant was having animosity with him and previously the same surveyor caused loss to him by given false report regarding the same vehicle of respondent No. 1. From the perusal of the driving license (Paper No. 4kh/18 on the District Forum’s record) it is evident that the driver Sh. Ram Bahadur is authorized to drive HMV, transport vehicle on hill routes for which there is an endorsement of Licensing Authority of Dehradun for driving the vehicle on hill roads. 11. From the perusal of the driving license (Paper No. 4kh/18 on the District Forum’s record) it is evident that the driver Sh. Ram Bahadur is authorized to drive HMV, transport vehicle on hill routes for which there is an endorsement of Licensing Authority of Dehradun for driving the vehicle on hill roads. 11. The District Forum has properly considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly in accordance with law. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and is fit to be upheld. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi in consumer complaint No. 19 of 2011 is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.