KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.1030/01

JUDGMENT DATED 25.3.2008

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Divisional Office, Whitelanes Building,

Kalazhi Road, Calicut

Represented by Sri.Pradeep Kumar              : APPELLANT

Assistant Divisional Manager

Divisional Office-I, L.M.S. Compound

Trivandrum.

Vs

Kolassery Ratnakaran

Girija Nivas, Manari,                                     : RESPONDENT

Kozhikode-29

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellant is insurance company/opposite party who is under orders to pay the sum of Rs.2,376/-with interest at 12% from the date of the complaint and also a sum of Rs.180/-towards costs.

The case of the complainant is that he had insured with the opposite party, one C.D set. When the laser head of the C.D set stopped working the appellant refused pay the repair charges.

It is the case of the opposite party/appellant the laser head became defective due to wear and tear on account of long and continuous use. Hence above is not covered by the policy and the policy conditions.

The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1, Exts. P1 to P4 and R1.

The appellant has stressed on Ext.R1 survey report and the evidence RW1 the Surveyor. In Ext.R1 survey report prepared by RW1 it is mentioned that the complainant had alleged that the Sony C.D. Player became damaged due to voltage fluctuation. It is recorded that the damage was due to the weakening of the optical pick-up due to prolonged usage. It is also mentioned that the C.D Player is Sony of Japanese make and 1999 model. The C.D. Player got damaged on 28.4.2001. According to the Surveyor it was occasioneed on account of wear and tear. There is nothing to show that the qualifications of the Surveyor evidence his expertise . He has inspected the C.D set at Madona Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Calicut wherein it was given for repairs. We find that the above evidence is hardly sufficient to establish that the defect has taken place due to wear and tear as contemplated vide Ext.P1 policy. We find that that order of the Forum based on the evidence adduced is not liable to set aside as no manifest illegality in the order has been brought out. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBEER

Pk.