KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

           APPEAL:227/2007

                             JUDGMENT DATED:20..01..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Adimali Branch, Repd by A.P.Usha,

Asst. Manager, Divisional Office-1,                            : APPELLANT

L.M.S.Compound, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv:Sri.R.Jagadish Kumar)

          Vs.

E.R.Vijayan, Elamba Thottam Veedu,

Rajakkad.P.O, Rajakkad-685 566.                    : RESPONDENT

                                      JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party/United India Insurance Company Ltd. in CC:159/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.18,723/- with 12% interest from 16..1..2006 as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.  There was no representation for the respondent.

2. The case of the complainant is that his Mahindra Commandar Vehicle insured with the opposite party met with an accident on 30..11..2005 and extensive damages were sustained.  The officer of the opposite party inspected the vehicle and took photographs and directed to take steps for repairs.  The complainant submitted bill for labour charges amounting to Rs.16,000/- and of spare parts for Rs.16,154/-.  Opposite party paid only Rs.13,431/- to the workshop owner.  The complainant sent a notice dated:24..2..2006.  It is contended that no reply has been received.  He has claimed the balance amount and compensation.

3. It was contended by the opposite party/appellant that the amount was received in full and final settlement.  It is pointed out that the appellant had engaged an independent surveyor Mr.Binoy Mathew.  The surveyor has done a detailed inspection and assessed the loss as a sum of Rs.13,431/-.  The same was intimated to the complainant.   As requested by the complainant the amount was paid to the proprietor of the workshop.  It is contended that the claim was settled without any protest.  It is further pointed out that a detailed reply to the letter of the complainant was sent on 7..3..2006.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, DW1 and Exts.R1 to R4.

5. The Forum has rejected the contention of full and final settlement of the amount.   It appears that the receipt was signed in blank; and also as the complainant is a person who is not proficient in English, in which language the voucher etc has been printed.  It is also seen that immediately after receipt of the amount the complainant had sent notice which is admitted in the version of the opposite parties.  The reply allegedly sent has not been produced.

6. On a perusal of Ext.R4 summary report on the basis of which the amount has been paid; we find that the report did not contain any details of the claim made by the complainant.  The survey report only contains the price of the spares as stated by the surveyor and the depreciation if any.  The amount claimed as per the claim for spare parts is Rs.24,250/-, the amount allowed is only Rs.4431/-, labour charges claimed is Rs.14,675/-, labour charges allowed is Rs.10,000/-.

7. We find that the nature and extend of damages mentioned in the survey report would show that the vehicle has sustained very extensive damages.  Every item of the vehicle is mentioned as bent, twisted or broken.  The labour charges allowed is about the double of the cost of spares allowed.  It is also made that the alleged full and final settlement voucher ie Ext.R1 contains only the signature of the complainant.  The amount, date etc are blank.   No stamp has also not been affixed.  In the light of the above factors we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for.  Appeal is dismissed.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VL.