SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)<br /> Dr. Padmakumar has filed this complaint before the forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company. The contentions of the complaint are as follows: - His motor car Indica DLS II bearing No. KL-04/5853 was insured with the opposite party for the period from 16-10-2004 to 15-10-2005 vide policy No. 101300/31/04/10278 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- under IDV scheme. At the time of commencement of the said policy, the opposite party fixed the premium amount on the basis of the market value of the vehicle. It is contended that the opposite party is liable to pay the entire insured amount in case of total loss of vehicle. The vehicle of the complainant has been stolen by a stranger on 14-12-2005. That matter was informed before the Police authorities and the opposite party. As such, the Muhamma Police filed a final report referring the case of theft as undetectable. By referring that report, the complainant preferred a claim before the opposite party for getting compensation for the insured policy amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Instead of paying the full insured amount, the opposite party settled the claim for a sum of Rs. 2,19,500/-. Hence the complaint for the balance amount of Rs. 30,500/- and for other reliefs.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance before the forum and filed version along with documents. In the version, the opposite party has stated that the complainant has accepted the full and final settlement amount of Rs. 2,19,500/- without any objection or protest. Complaint is filed for a quantum dispute and that it is a settled law that the complaint regarding quantum dispute after settling the claim is not maintainable. The sum insured of the vehicle was fixed based on the declaration of the insured and the premium amount was settled accordingly as per the settled law. It is stated that the complaint is not liable to pay the entire insured amount in case of total loss. It is further stated that the complainant had lost his 2002 Model vehicle on 13-12-2005 and its prevailing market rate at the time of loss was only 2,20,000/- which was assessed by two independent licensed surveyors. It is further submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues.<br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2) Costs and compensation.<br /> 4. Issues 1 and 2: - Both parties have produced documents in evidence. On the side of the complainant, he has produced document-Exts. A1 to A4-marked. Ext. A1 is the letter dated 20-03-2006 addressed to the opposite party, by the complainant requesting to consider the claim amount of Rs. 30,500/-. Exts. A2 and A3 are the postal receipt and the acknowledgement card. Ext. A4 is the policy certificate for the insured amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant with the policy conditions. Opposite party has produced Exts. B1 to B3 documents in evidence-marked. Ext. B1 is the copy of the settlement voucher in respect of the said vehicle. Exts. B2 and B3 are the valuation reports of the panel surveyors of the opposite party. On a careful readings of the above said documents given in evidence, it can be seen that the complainant has insured the vehicle with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- under IDV scheme. As per the policy condition, the complainant is entitled to get the full amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in case of total loss. In the policy condition, it is stated that IDV value of the vehicle shall be treated as the market value of the vehicle. Ext. A4 – policy certificate shows that the total IDV – Rs. 2,50,000/-. In this matter, the opposite party has admitted that they had paid a sum of Rs. 2,19,500/- to the complainant. Complainant has stated that he had received the sum with objection. Considering the various aspects of this case and after a careful readings of the documents and deposition, we are of the view that the opposite party is bound to pay the balance insured amount of Rs. 30,500/- (Rupees Thirty thousand and Five Hundred only) to the complainant in connection with the full insured amount. The delay on the part of the opposite party, in releasing the said balance insured amount will come under the purview of deficiency in service. The issues are found in favour of the complainant.<br /> 5. Hence we direct the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs. 30,500/- (Rupess Thirty Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the complainant together with 12 % interest and a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for mental agony and loss, with a cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) for this proceedings. We further direct the opposite party to pay the said amounts to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> Complaint allowed.<br /> Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 25th day of July, 2008.<br /> Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah<br /> <br /> Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Evidence of the Complainant:-<br /> <br /> PW1 - Dr. K.N.Padmakumar<br /> Ext. A1 20-03-2006 Letter from Dr.K.N.Padmakumar to The Divisional Manager, United Indian Insurance Company.<br /> Ext. A2 21-03-2006 Postal receipt<br /> Ext. A3 22-03-2006 Acknowledgement Card<br /> Ext. A4 - Policy Certificate and its conditions<br /> <br /> Evidence of the Opposite party:-<br /> <br /> RW1 - M.M. Joy<br /> RW2 - K.N. Jagadeesh Chandran<br /> Ext. B1 - Copy of settlement voucher<br /> Ext. B2 - Valuation report of Mr. K.N.Jagadeesh Chandran<br /> Ext. B3 - Valuation report of Mr. M.M. Joy.<br /> <br /> <br /> // True Copy //<br /> <br /> By Order<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> To<br /> Complainant/Opposite party/SF<br /> <br /> Typed by: Sh/-<br /> Compd by:<br /> <br />