<br /> SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the director of the complainant Company. The complainant company is incorporated under Indian Companies Act. The complainant is competent to represent the complainant company. The complainant company is the owner of a Lancer Car having Reg. No. TN-39/L-4404. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. The said vehicle was stolen from the complainant’s premises on 1.11.2002. Immediately after the knowledge of this incident complainant informed the matter before North police station, Alappuzha. Police registered a case as Crime No. 587/2002. Thereafter complainant preferred a claim before the opposite party. But the opposite party offered Rs.3 lakhs as the value of the said vehicle. After the negotiation with the complainant, opposite party enhanced the claim amount to 4.25 lakhs on protest of the complainant. The complainant accepted the said amount as partial payment. Thereafter complainant filed this petition for getting the remaining value of the vehicle.<br /> 2. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party has taken the following contentions. The opposite party has given 4.25 lakhs as the maximum compensation. The surveyor of the company has assessed only Rs. 3 lakhs as the value of the stolen vehicle. The stolen vehicle is a 1999 model Lancer Car. The opposite party enhanced the claim amount from 3 lakhs to 4.25 lakhs after considering the request of the complainant dated 8.10.2003. For re-assessing the value they deputed a surveyor. As per the terms and conditions of the policy insurance company is liable to pay the market value of the vehicle or the sum insured which ever is less. Hence petition may be dismissed.<br /> 3. The complainant produced 5 documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to A5. The opposite party produced 4 documents which are marked as Exts.B1 to B4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and cross examined by the opposite party and the opposite party’s Branch Manager at Alappuzha cross examined by the complainant’s counsel.<br /> 4. Considering the rival contentions of the complainant and opposite party this Forum raised the following issue:<br /> Whether the complainant is entitled for claim amount and compensation from the opposite party establishing the deficiency as averred in the complaint? <br /> 5. The case of the complainant is that he was insured his vehicle for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. There is no dispute with regard to the insured amount. Ext.B1 also shows that the insured value is Rs.5,50,000/-. In Ext.B1, I.E.V. is 5,50,000/-. I.E.V. means insured estimated value. This shows that vehicle was insured for an estimated value and not the correct value as determined by any authority. The policy starts from 26.4.2002 and the policy was taken on 22.4.2002. The date of theft was on 1.11.2002. The estimated value of the vehicle on 22.4.2002 was Rs.5,50,000/-. Thereafter the value of the vehicle may be reduced considering its depreciation. Immediately after the theft a qualified surveyor duly appointed by the IRDA was appointed for assessing the market value of the subjected vehicle. Ext.B5 is the valuation certificate of J.Gandhinathan, a licensed surveyor. In the Ext.B5 the valuation of the vehicle is shown as Rs.4,25,000/-. Licensed surveyor appointed by the IRDA is a person has duty bound to assess the value under regulation number 13 by the provisions of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (licensing, professional requirements & code of conduct) regulations 2000. Hence there is a presumption in favour of the report filed by the surveyor, ie., Ext.B5. As per section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act presumption can be given to a document prepared in performance of duty. Licensed surveyor is a person licensed under a statute and his duty is also specified in the above said regulations. There is no challenge or produced any document by the complainant for impeaching the market value of the vehicle shown in Ext.B5. The complainant has not taken any steps for the examination of the person who prepared Ext.B5. The licensed surveyor is a person appointed by the IRDA. He has a duty to assess the value. The declared value of the vehicle can be treated as the market value through out the policy period with out any further depreciation for the purpose of total loss only applicable incase where the insured vehicle having age beyond five years and of obsolete model of the vehicle. In the present case the insured vehicle is Lancer Car and the production of the said vehicle is not yet stopped by the company. Hence the said vehicle cannot be considered as an obsolete model. The consistent view of the National Commission is that the Insurance Company is liable to pay only the market value of the vehicle at the time of accident. This position was held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is that the Insurance Company is liable to pay only the market value of the vehicle at the time of accident. This position was held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the decision reported in New India Assuracen Co. Vs. Sunilkumar Gupta reported in III(2002) CPJ83(NC) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s.Sourabh Resorts reported in III (2004) CPJ 16. In the light of the above decisions the amount given by the opposite party as the market value of the vehicle is true and correct. Hence there is no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of the opposite party. In the light of the above discussion the Forum found that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. <br /> In the result the petition is dismissed. No order on cost.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 24th day of March, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/- SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT):<br /> <br /> Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER):<br /> <br /> Sd/-SMT.N.SHAJITHA BEEVI (MEMBER):<br /> <br /> APPENDIX:- <br /> Evidence of the complainant:- <br /> <br /> PW1 - Alex Joseph (Witness)<br /> Ext.A1 - Letter dated 15.10.2003<br /> <br /> Ext.A2 - Letter dated 20.10.2003<br /> <br /> Ext.A3 - Letter dated 11.6.2004<br /> <br /> Ext.A4 - Letter dated 12.7.2004<br /> <br /> Ext.A5 - Letter dated 16.7.2004<br /> <br /> Evidence of the opposite party:-<br /> <br /> RW1 - Preetha S. (Witness)<br /> <br /> Ext.B1 - Photo copy of the policy<br /> <br /> Ext.B2 - Motor Claim Form<br /> <br /> Ext.B3 - Letter dated 8.10.2003<br /> <br /> Ext.B4 - Settlement Intimation Voucher<br /> <br /> Ext.B5 - Valuation Certificate<br /> <br /> Ext.B6 - Investigation Report for theft vehicle<br />