KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL:155/2006 JUDGMENT DATED:30..01..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT N.S. Sabu, Proprietor, Lal Gold Works, Karippadam.P.O, : APPELLANT Vaikkom. (By Adv: Sri.Mathews K.Philip) Vs. 1.Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Muncipal Shopping Complex, Kacherithazham, Muvattupuzha. : RESPONDENTS 2.Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Mevelloor. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP:814/00 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The Forum has allowed the complaint only in part and ordered opposite parties/Insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation for the delay in finalizing the claim and Rs.750/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant who is a goldsmith running an outfit Lal Gold Works is that the machinery of ornament manufacturing and ornaments covered by the policy of the 1st opposite party against theft was the subject of theft on 15..3..1999 in the mid night and that the insurer only offered 75% of the sum assessed by the surveyor ie Rs.10,860/-. According to him the articles stolen included the file table valued at Rs.3700/-, half HP motor of Rs.2000/-, Gold ornaments worth Rs.6672/-, Gold bars valued at Rs.63,520/- and gold dust valued at Rs.6,426/-, altogether Rs.82,318/-. He had availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the 2nd opposite party bank and the amount of coverage with the 1st opposite party is Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The 1st opposite party/insurer has contended that there is no proper evidence with respect to the alleged theft of gold ornaments etc and that the surveyor has assessed only Rs.10,816/-. The matter could not be settled as the complainant did not produce the final report of police investigation. The 1st opposite party had offered to pay 75% of the amount assessed by the Surveyor on the complainant executing an indemnity bond. The same was not complied with by the complainant. 4. The 2nd opposite party has also filed version admitting the cash credit facility and the fact that the gold cutting machine and other machineries and the ornaments were insured through the 2nd opposite party. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A17 and B1 to B4. 6. The complainant has relied on the monthly stock statement submitted before the bank and proof affidavit filed by the witness. In the FIS recorded on the next day morning the value of the articles stolen is mentioned as Rs.72,192/-. The counsel for the appellant has sought for an opportunity to have the witnesses examined before the Forum. The witness 5 in number are persons who had allegedly entrusted gold for manufacturing ornaments and also persons from whom the complainant had allegedly purchased old gold ornaments and converted the same as bars. It is seen from the evidence that complainant was having a bangle cutting machine also. In the absence of formal and well kept records of stock the surveyor has suggested only Rs.10,860/-. The Forum has noted that the surveyor has submitted the survey report after one year of the inspection by him of the shop of the complainant. It is also pertinent to note that there is inordinate delay in settling the claim on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complainant is entitled for interest which has not been awarded. 7. In the circumstances it appears that it would be appropriate to provide an opportunity as sought for by the complainant to adduce further evidence to establish his claim. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. The matter is remitted back to he Forum. The Forum is directed to permit the complainant to adduce further evidence in the matter. If so desired the opposite parties are also to be allowed to adduce contra evidence. The case stands posted before the Forum on 26..3..2010. The office is directed to forward the LCR along with this order immediately to the Forum. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
