By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sum up of the Complaint.<br /> The Complainant is the Owner of the Mahindra Jeep Numbered KL 12/6775. The Jeep was purchased on 16.11.1999 at the rate of Rs.3,48,000/-. The Vehicle was on the service of contract carriage. The Jeep was insured by the Opposite Party. The policy Number is 101601/31/050/11/17158/2000. Being full cover policy, valid from 16.11.2000 to 15.11.2001 the insurer, the Opposite Party is liable under the terms of the policy. The value estimated for the Jeep is Rs. 3,00,000/- the Complainant remitted the premium of Rs. 7,118/- on 29.10.2001. Three person under the pretexts that they are the passengers hiring the vehicle for the trip to<br /> (Contd..... 2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> HD Kote availed the service of the Vehicle. The Jeep was driven by the Complainant and when reached the place named Gundathor, the midway between HD Kote and Mananthavady, the passengers in the Jeep threatened the Complainant and seized key from the Complainant, the Complainant was in the fear of imminent death, meanwhile the persons who threatened the Complainant extorted the jeep. The Complainant filed a petition before the SHO Beachnahally and crime was registered 93/01 under section 386, 506 read with 34 IPC the Police could not trace out the vehicle extorted. The Complainant had applied to the Opposite Party for the favour under the insurance scheme and to compensate him with the price of the vehicle. The Opposite party instead of giving the actual value of the vehicle gave the Complainant Rs.1,89,000/- which is to low to the actual amount that is to be compensated. The vehicle was in use for only 23 months after the make. The request of the Complainant for a substantial compensation was not considered. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 86,000/- as an additional amount of compensation and interest of 11% from 17.6.2004 and the cost of Rs.5,000/- is to be paid by the Opposite Party, the insurer.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party on their appearance filed version. According to the Opposite party the Jeep which is insured by them is numbered KL 12A 6775. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant is compensated with the substantial amount based on the value assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the Opposite party. The amount assessed was Rs.1,90,000/- as a settlement of claim, deducting Rs.1,000/- , Rs.1,90,000/- was paid to the Complainant in the way of compensation. The Complainant had given the Opposite party the letter of subrogation duly notarized. On accepting the cheque of Rs.1,89,000/- on 08.06.2004 raising the dispute against the term agreed is unreasonable and cannot be sustained.<br /> <br /> (Contd..... 3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> Points that are to be considered:<br /> 1.Whether the Complainant is to be compensated?<br /> 2.What is the amount of compensation?<br /> 3.Whether any order up on cost?<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party appeared and filed version. The Points No.1 and 2 can be considered together. The Complainant was examined as PW1, registration certificate is marked as Ext.A1, The final report of the SHO Beachnahally is marked as Ext.A2. The certificate issued by the insurer is marked as Ext.A3. On examination of PW1, it is deposed that the extorted vehicle is lost for ever. The final report the Ext.A2 based on the investigation of the crime numbered 93/03 by the SHO Beachnahally evinces that the investigation reached no where else. Though the value estimated for the Jeep is Rs.3,00,000/-. The assessed value of the Jeep is Rs.1,90,000/-only. The testimony of the PW1 does not express anything as such that his consent was not voluntarily given and apart from that the subrogation letter notarized is duly signed by the Complainant which is marked as Ext.B2. It is further seen that the letter of subrogation is absolutely up on the consent of the Complainant. The testimony of the Complainant that “ letter of the subrogation þ  F´mWv FgpXnbXv  F¶v F\n¡dnbnà “ cannot be taken in face value. It is proved from the evidence given by the Complainant himself that he had agreed upon the terms of settlement for Rs.1,90,000/- The right of ownership of the vehicle was rescind by the Complainant. The independent Surveyor who is examined as PW1, estimated the value of the vehicle Rs.1,90,000/-. It is a fact that the Jeep which was extorted was only in use for 23 months after its make. The value assessed by the Surveyor perhaps did not reach to the value of<br /> (Contd ...... 4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> the actual price. Nothing is proved in evidence in that respect. Apart from that OPW1 on chief examination deposed that he ascertained the value of Rs.1,90,000/- as the price of the Jeep deducting the depreciation of the market value. The Manager of the Insurance Company is examined as OPW2 the financier and the Complainant were together agreed for a settlement and the amount Rs.1,89,000/- is decided upon the terms of agreement Ext.B1 is the claim form, the valuation report given by the Surveyor is the Ext.B3. The value assessed by the Surveyor as per this document is Rs.1,90,000/-. The documentary evidence cannot be thrown off in to oblivion by mere statement of the Complainant that he is ignorant of all the things PW1 himself stated that claim form H¸n«v sImSp¡pI  am{Xta  sNbvXn«pffp CwKvfojnepw aebmf¯nepw  FgpXnbn«p­ . There is no case for the Complainant that the letter of subrogation was obtained by the Opposite Party by undue influence or fraudulent means. In Prem Prakash Agarval V/S National Insurance Company reported in 2007 CTJ P 803 Honorable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that in the absence of any pleading about misrepresentation fraud or undue influence, letter of subrogation duly signed and in granting the appropriate relief by the authority is justified and it is further observed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the same case that One could not be oblivious to the fact that the payment has been received by executing the document and transfering ownership to the Insurance Company and taking a turn for enhancement of compensation is not just and reasonable. Point No.1 is not up held in favour of the Complainant and the Complainant is not to be compensated for an enhanced amount apart from the amount that he already received. Being the point No.1 is not substantially proved in support of the Complainant the amount of Compensation which is the point No.2 does not arise here. Up on this circumstances <br /> (Contd ...... 5)<br /> - 5 -<br /> the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The complaint is dismissed no Order upon costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 23rd day of August 2007.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> Witnesses for Complainant:<br /> PW1 Ramesh Complainant.<br /> Witnesses for Opposite Party:<br /> OPW1. Abdul Nazer.K Independent Surveyor.<br /> OPW2. Nagesh. Manager United Insurance Cop. Ltd.<br /> Exhibits for Complainant:<br /> A1. Certificate of Registration (Photocopy) <br /> A2. Final Report. (Photocopy) <br /> A3. Certificate of Insurance (Photocopy)<br /> A4. Invoice (Photocopy) dt: 16.11.1999.<br /> <br /> (Contd ... 6 )<br /> - 6 -<br /> <br /> Exhibits for Opposite Party:<br /> B1. Motor Claim Form. <br /> B2. Letter of Subrogation. dt: 4.6.2004.<br /> B3. Valuation Report. dt: 25.04.2003.<br /> B4. Certificate of Insurance. <br /> B5. Claim Disbursement Voucher (True copy) dt:8.6.2004<br /> B6. Letter (True Copy) dt:4.6.2004<br /> B7. Settlement Intimation Voucher (True copy) <br /> B8. Evaluation Report. Dt: 10-.12.2003.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> Compared by:<br /> <br /> M/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />