State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company vs M/S Jaipal And Ors on 10 January, 2014
J&K STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT JAMMU. Quoram: Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Bashir A Kirmani President _________________________ MemberComplaint No. 3449/2013
Date of Institution:08-01-2013 Date of Decision:25.09.2013 M/s Modern Hotel through Sh. RAmesh Mahajan, Managing Director, Modern Hotel pvt. Ltd., B.C. Road, Jammu.
Complainant Versus United India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Branch office Bahu Plaza, Hall no. 202-203 North Block, Jammu, Tawi, 180012 Through its Manager.
..Respondent.
_______________________________________________________________________ Counsel for parties:
Mr. Rakesh Badyal, Adv. For Complainant.
Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. respondent.
1.
While coming from Udhampur to Jammu on 04.10.2009 complainants vehicle, admittedly insured with respondent insurance company, met with an accident suffering damage; which when reported to company was assessed by their Surveyor at Rs.4.41 lacs, but payment was with-held for the reason that drivers name as contained in his license was doubtful, in so far as his parentage and place of residence as mentioned in police challan pertaining to accident, and consequently in court proceedings, did not tally with that given in driving license. Aggrieved he has sued respondent company for indemnity which is resisted on the ground that drivers identity having become doubtful, assessed amount was duly with-held. During course of proceedings both sides brought materials supporting their pleadings on record, referred to during course of arguments.
2. We have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Both the insurance cover to damaged vehicle and accident causing damage thereto are admitted alongwith liability to indemnify the complainant. Area of dispute thus shrinks to the identity of driver as aforementioned. It would be apt to notice that after accident a criminal case was instituted against him in Magisterial court, which ended in conviction on confession and fine of Rs.8000/=, confessional statement having been recorded on the very day, the case was instituted. Doubtless, his parentage and place of residence contained in the police challan and court records, is different than one given on the driving license which appears to have persuaded complainant to file an application for re-investigation before concerned Magistrate, who, in his wisdom sought report from concerned police as per photo copy whereof parentage and place of residence of the convict driver was same as contained in his driving license, wrong mention thereof in criminal proceedings attributed to confusion in which he uttered them wrongly. Particulars of driver as given on driving license are Hari Chand S/o Dharam Chand R/o Bahu Fort, Jammu, mentioned in police report and court records as Hari Chand S/o Sant Ram with a different place of residence. Incidentally, however, the photographs on driving license and police record is same which suggests that wrong parentage etc. contained in police/magisterial record has crept in, due to some mistake. Situation as such reveals reasons to believe that person on the wheel at time of accident has been the holder of license, wherein he is mentioned as Hari Chand S/o Dharam Chand R/o Bahu Fort, Jammu. How police and criminal court recorded his particulars wrongly is not for this Commission to comment upon, particularly, because all factual aspects relevant to disposal of the case are clear enough, to come to a conclusion regarding complainants title to be indemnified. Mistaken particulars of the driver contained in police records would therefore have no relevance in so far as determination of respondents liability to indemnify complainant is concerned, because identity of person driving the damaged vehicle at the time of accident is reasonably established washing away the objection taken by respondent insurance company.
3. In over all circumstances therefore the complaint is allowed and an award for Rs.4.41 lacs as assessed by companys Surveyor is passed in favour of complainant alongwith Rs.19000/= by way of compensation for agony etc. they suffered and costs of litigation, bringing respondent companys total liability towards complainant to Rs.4.60 lacs, which be paid to him or deposited in the Commission within a period of eight weeks from now. By way of abundant caution the complainant shall execute an undertaking that in case the doubt on drivers identity at some point of time precipitates into reality, he would reimburse the respondent company without reference to any further litigation. Office to follow-up.
Announced.
Member President