JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.09.2015 delivered by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu in Complaint No.3165 of 2010, whereby the learned Commission dismissed the complaint of complainant for want of a valid and actionable policy on the date of accident to claim indemnity for the damaged excavator.

2. The facts as gathered from the appeal file are that the Hydraulic Excavator of appellant-Inderjeet Singh suffered accident at Jhajjar Kotli on 28.01.2009 when a rock fell on it as a result of which the excavator got damaged. At the time of accident the excavator was insured with National Insurance Company, i.e., respondent No.2 herein, and the policy cover was with effect from 30.03.2008 to 29.03.2009. Before that, the excavator was insured with ICICI Lombard with effect from 30.03.2007 to 29.03.2008. Claimant-Inderjeet Singh raised an indemnity claim with National Insurance Company. However, the National Insurance Company-respondent No.2 herein declined the claim on the ground that the engine and chassis numbers of the Hydraulic Excavator did not match with the numbers mentioned in the insurance policy. Feeling aggrieved, claimant-Inderjeet Singh filed a complaint before the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu. However, the learned Consumer Commission vide vide judgment/order dated 01.09.2015 dismissed the complaint of claimant-Inderjeet Singh for want of a valid and actionable policy on the date of accident to claim indemnity for the damaged excavator. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions, perused the appeal file as well as the record so produced.

4. Admittedly, the insurer-National Insurance Company did not dispute the Hydraulic Excavator getting damaged on 28.01.2009 at Jhajjar Kotli when a rock fell on it. National Insurance Company also did not dispute with respect to the fact that when the accident occurred on 28.01.2009, the insurance policy bearing No.411800/31/07/6300005133 was very much alive and subsisting; it was in the name of one Inderjeet Singh, H.No.164, Tangewali Gali, Kachi Chawani, Jammu, and, the effective date of commencement of insurance was 30.03.2008 to midnight of 29.03.2009. While filing objections to the complaint filed by complainant-Inderjeet Singh before the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the National Insurance Company has specifically averred in paragraph-5 of the parawise reply that the surveyor deputed by it physically inspected the damaged vehicle; the loss was assessed at Rs.13,60,000/- and complainant-Inderjeet Singh also signed the consent letter for the said amount; meaning thereby the National Insurance Company has itself admitted that the loss caused to the Hydraulic Excavator due to the said accident was at Rs.13,60,000/-.

5. Now the only dispute is with regard to the authenticity of Hydraulic Excavator, i.e., the Hydraulic Excavator which got damaged on 28.01.2009 at Jhajjar Kotli, Jammu was the same covered under insurance policy No.421800/31/07/6300005133 or it was some other Hydraulic Excavator.

6. The stand of National Insurance Company is that the Hydraulic Excavator which got damaged in the accident on 28.01.2009 at Jhajjar Kotli, Jammu is not the one against which the insurance cover was made vide insurance policy No.421800/31/07/6300005133 on 30.03.2008 in view of different chassis number and engine number mentioned in the insurance cover. It is claimed that in the insurance cover chassis number has been mentioned as CZN 489362 and engine number as CZN 489362, whereas the Hydraulic Excavator which got damaged in the accident on 28.01.2009 is having different chassis number as K0909 and engine number as CPEM 070602. Thus, one can easily construe that the Hydraulic Excavator which got damaged on 28.01.2009 is not the one covered under insurance policy No.421800/31/07/6300005133. Therefore, the Nat