SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(J&K) 191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
TASHI RABSTAN, WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JJ.
Inder Jeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
ICICI Lombard and Another - Respondents
MA No. 32 of 2016
Decided On : 14-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Virender Bhat.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Ms. Himani.

The insurer's duty to conduct a reasonable investigation, the liability to indemnify the insured, and the responsibility of the insurance agent in accurately completing insurance applications.

Headnote:

Insurance - Validity of Policy - 30.03.2008 to 29.03.2009 - [Hydraulic Excavator, Insurance Policy, Chassis Number, Engine Number] - [Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64-VB; Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(b)] - The court discussed the authenticity of the Hydraulic Excavator covered under the insurance policy, the dispute over chassis and engine numbers, the insurer's refusal to pay the claim, and the responsibility of the insurance agent. The court emphasized the insurer's duty to conduct a reasonable investigation and the liability to indemnify the insured. The judgment was influenced by the interpretation of the Insurance Act and the Consumer Protection Act, leading to the decision to set aside the previous judgment and direct the insurer to pay the assessed loss to the claimant with interest.

Fact of the Case:

The Hydraulic Excavator suffered an accident, and the insurer declined the claim due to discrepancies in chassis and engine numbers. The claimant contended that the insurance agent had copied the wrong numbers, and the damaged excavator was the same as covered under the policy.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the insurer did not dispute the accident or the validity of the insurance policy at the time of the accident. It emphasized the insurer's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and the responsibility of the insurance agent. The court set aside the previous judgment and directed the insurer to pay the assessed loss to the claimant with interest.

Issues: Authenticity of the insured Hydraulic Excavator, dispute over chassis and engine numbers, responsibility of the insurance agent, refusal to pay the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the insurer's duty to conduct a reasonable investigation and the liability to indemnify the insured. It held the insurer accountable for the refusal to pay the claim and highlighted the responsibility of the insurance agent in accurately completing insurance applications.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the previous judgment was set aside, and the insurer was directed to pay the assessed loss to the claimant with interest.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top