HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. CIMA NO. 179 OF 201.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Petitioners M/S Malik Construction Co. Ltd Respondent !Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate ^Mr. O. P. Thakur, Advocate Honble Mr. Justice M. M. Kumar, Chief Justice Honble Mr. Justice Hasnain Massodi, Judge Date:
14. 02.2013 :
: M. M. Kumar, CJ 1.This appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited preferred under Section 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 is directed against award dated 27.11.2009 passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu ( for brevity the Commission). The Commission has awarded a sum of Rs.3,13,585/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum to the respondentconsumer from the date of receipt of the Surveyors report.
2. Facts are not in dispute. A Paver Finisher belonging to the respondent-consumer was insured with the appellant- Insurance Company which met with an accident and a report in that regard was lodged with Police Station, Ramban and an FIR 2 was registered. The respondent-claimant filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs.4,83,000/- alongwith interest of Rs.1,87,500/-. It also claimed pendent lite interest from the appellantcompany. The claim of the respondent-consumer was opposed on the ground that it was not covered under the Insurance Policy because the accident of over turning of the vehicle was not covered by the policy and was excluded. It was also pleaded that the driver, who was driving the Paver Finisher at the relevant time, did not possess the driving license because in the FIR Ashok Kumar S/o Chandu Ram was wrongly shown as the driver of the Paver Finisher whereas actually Jamal Din S/o Manga was driving the Paver Finisher.
3. The Commission has recorded categorical finding that the accident was caused due to failure of brakes and Jamal Din was holding a valid driving license. The loss assessor and Surveyor Mr. Arun Kumar assessed the net loss of the insured Paver Finisher at Rs.3,13,585/- as the full and final settlement of the insureds claim. The Commission accepted those findings of the loss assessor and allowed the complaint, directing the appellant Insurance Company to indemnify the respondentconsumer for a sum of Rs.3,13,585/- alongwith interest @8% per annum from the date of receipt of Surveyors report. Feeling aggrieved the appellant-company has filed this appeal”
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The findings recorded by the Commission are well based and do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. It cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or not based on evidence. The plea of the appellant-company that vehicle was being driven by Jamal Din and not by Ashok Kumar has also been taken care of by holding that Jamal Din possessed a valid driving license and the accident occurred on account of failure of brakes. The effort of the appellant-Insurance Company to bring the accident under the exception that the vehicle turned turtle has not been accepted by the Commission. Therefore, we are of the view that no acceptable ground for admission of the appeal has been made out.
5. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (Hasnain Massodi) (M. M. Kumar) Judge Chief Justice Jammu, 14.02.2013 Anil Raina, Secy.