KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 471/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 31.8.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Branch Manager, : APPELLANTS Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Medical College Branch, Medical College.P.O. 2. P.Balakrishnan, Branch Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., P.O.Medical College, Calicut -8. (By Adv.Menon and Pai) Vs. K.Sarala, Sarangi, : RESPONDENT 30/2163 B, ,P.O.Chevayoor, Kozhikode -17. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kozhikode in OP. No.575/01. The appellants are the opposite parties. The respondent is the complainant. This appeal prefers under the order of the forum below direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- along with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order passed in connection with the dispute arised from a chitty conducted by the opposite parties. In brief the complainant is a subscriber in the chitty conducted by the opposite parties had auctioned the chitty had a prize money could not be paid to her since sufficient security was not produced. The complainant had, on an earlier occasion filed an OP 539/2000 and had obtained direction from the Forum below for releasing the prize money on production of sufficient security. The opposite party contended that they were ready and willing to disburse the prize amount and the same could not be done since the complainant failed to furnish proper and sufficient security. Besides if a subscriber auctions the chitty and does not offer security for availing the prize money. The prize money has to be adjusted towards balance instalment. If the prize money is insufficient to cover the balance instalments, the auction difference has to be realized from the subscriber. Therefore the opposite party had intimated the complainant that they will be constrained to initiate revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant to realize the amounts due to the opposite party. 2. The evidence adduced consisted of oral testimony of PW1 Rajan the husband of the complainant and the documentary evidence marked as Ext.P1 to P8. A witness was examined (Branch Manager, P.Balakrishnan) as RW1 and marked Ext.R1 to R2. 3. The Forum below heard both sides and found that the 2nd opposite party as to acted according to the statutes of the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party who is bound to give explanations and details regarding the queries made by the customers, failed to discharge his duties properly. It ultimately resulted in the complainant is not getting the prize amount even after offering the required security. In the above circumstances, the Forum below concluded that the conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled to get reasonable compensation. As a result the Forum below allowed the complaint. 4. This appeal came before this Commission for final hearing the counsel for the appellant is present and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with law and evidence. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. This Commission heard in detail and considered the entire evidence available in the case records and find that the Forum below passed the order as per the provisions of the law and evidence and it is legally sustainable. There is no meaning from the part of the appellants/opposite parties to proceed against the complainant under the provisions of the revenue recovery act. It is a very megre amounts they claimed . Thus spent more than this amount for conducting the litigation even though very same time earlier installments paid by the respondent/complainant was along with the hands of the opposite parties. In the circumstance we are not seeing any apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below. In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. The points of the appeal answered accordingly. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Ps.
APPEAL 570/05 JUDGMENT DATED. 19.8.2010 This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in the file of OP.No.410/02 dated 9.5..05. Appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in the above OP. This appeal prefers from the impugned order passed by the Forum below directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.86,500/- with interest at the rate 12% per annum from 28.8.01 till realization, Rs.2000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost. 2. This is a dispute in connection with the insurance claim claimed by the complainant for his Mahindra jeep registration No.KL8L7182. The vehicle insured by the appellants/opposite parties against any loss or damage to the vehicle by accident, theft etc. the veredity of the insurance for the period from 4.4.99 to 3.9.2000. The vehicle was stolen and not recovered by the police. The 1st appellant settled the insurance claim and paid Rs.2,59,000/- towards loss, But according to the complainant he has entitled to get Rs.3,45,500/- being insurance amount. The complainant accepted the settled amount without any protest. He later approached the 1st respondent/appellant many occasions but they did not reopened the matter. So the complainant is entitled to get a further sum of Rs.86,500/- to the loss as per the insurance contract. Hence the complaint. Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that they are only liable to pay market value of the vehicle as on the date of the occurrence. They deputed a surveyor for assessed the ….market value of the vehicle and it was assessed as Rs.2,75,000/-, Rs.2,70,000/-, 2,60,000/- and Rs.2,60,000/- respectively. They agreed to settle the matter for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- after reducing the compulsory excess of Rs.1000/-. This was the amount of Rs.2,59,000/- the petitioner also agreed to settle the matter for a sum of Rs.2,59,000/- then contended that the complainant also executed a subrogation letter on 22.2.02 undertaking the subrogation of the rights in default of insurance company to recover the loss. The complainant received Rs.2,59,000 by cheques towards full satisfaction of the entire pay. Hence the matter was settled finally. The petitioner is not entitled to get any further relief and the complainant may be dismissed closed with cost.. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P6 and Ext.R1 to R11. there is no oral evidence by both sides. After considering the entire evidence the Forum below found that the complainant was entitled to get entire amount he claimed and allowed the complaint. And direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.86500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.8.01 till realization, Rs.2000 towards compensation and Rs.1000 as cost. This impugned order was challenged on this day this appeal came before this Commission the counsel for the appellant is present and there is no representation for the respondents. The counsel for the appellants argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with law and evidence. They are only entitled to give the market value and the jeep assessed by the surveyor and further contended that the cheque was received by the complainant without any protest for the further claim was estopped by the law hence this appeal is liable to be set aside. We are seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the law and evidence and it is not legally sustainable the complainant is only entitled to get only market value which assessed by the surveyor of the appellants/company. His further claim was estopped by the law estoppel. In the result this appeal is allowed and set aside the order passed by the Forum below ps | 
