KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:460/2001 JUDGMENT DATED:17..4..2008 (Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF, Trivandrum in OP:326/99) PRESENT SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1.The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Aristo Junction, Thampanoor, Trivandrum. 2.Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., : APPELLANTS Thakaraparambu Road, Trivandrum. 3.Regional Manager, Regional Office, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Muthoot Towers, M.G.Road, Ernakulam. (By Adv: M/S Kalkura) V. M.Sreevidya, T.C.37/450, Anakkottil Street, : RESPONDENTS Fort, Thiruvanthapuram. JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:30..4..2001 of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP:326/99. The complaint in the said OP was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming the insurance amount with respect to the repairing charge of an insured computer. The complainant preferred claim for Rs.25,250/- but the opposite party offered only Rs.7500/-. The complainant was not amenable for the same. The opposite party/insurance company relied on the report submitted by the approved surveyor. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant to a greater extent and thereby directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as repair charges with compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in OP:326/99. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellants and the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the appeal. He much relied on Ext.D5 report submitted by the surveyor Mr.C.Cheriyan who has been examined before the Forum below as DW2 and canvassed for the position that the market value of the out dated computer was only Rs.8500/- and after deducting the policy excess of Rs.1000/-, the complainant was only entitled to get Rs.7,500/-. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant disputed the correctness of D5 survey report he also attacked the two quotations attached to the survey report. The learned counsel for the respondent has also supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Is there occurred any deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in not allowing the insurance claim for Rs.25,250/- putforward by the complainant as the insured.? 2. Whether the opposite party/insurance company can be fully justified in offering a sum of Rs.7500/- against the claim for Rs.25,250/-? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 30..4..2001 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP:326/99? POINT NOS:1 TO 3:- There is no dispute that the computer owned by the respondent was insured with the appellant/insurance company viz, Oriental insurance company Limited. The insured amount was for Rs.42,000/- and the insured computer became defective on 6..5..1999 and the same was got repaired by spending a sum of Rs.25,250/-. It is also an admitted fact that the insured item was having the effective policy coverage on the date of peril. The claim for Rs.25,250/- was denied by the appellant/insurance company on the ground that the insured computer was an out dated one and the insured effected the repairs by replacing new generation spare parts. 5. Ext.P2 estimate issued by Mycro comp Service Centre would make it clear that the mother board Pentium + RAM, Hard disk drive + cables + Bay, Monitor, SMPS + Cabinet were replaced with service charges of Rs.1500/-. The total amount incurred by the complainant for effecting the repairs would come to Rs.25,250/-. But a perusal of the policy issued by the opposite party would make it clear that the insured personal computer was equipped with AT-486 4MB RAM, 640 Mother board hard disk, 144 MB FDD, SVGA Mono monitor 3 button mouse 101. So the policy would show that the personal computer was AT-486. But after effecting repairs the insured computer was provided with a mother board Pentium + RAM with a new hard disk drive and a monitor. So the important and essential parts of the insured computer were replaced and the spare parts used for effecting repairs are of new generation computer with that of pentium. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is only liable to get the insured computer repaired with same type of parts installed in the computer. So the claim made by the complainant as insured for Rs.25,250/- can be treated as an excessive one. At any rate the complainant/insured would not get the aforesaid sum of Rs.25,250/-. It is crystal clear that by effecting the repairs the complainant/insured is benefited. She got a new model computer or with an improved upgradation. So the claim for Rs.25,250/- can be treated as an unreasonable and unfair claim. 6. The appellant/insurance company offered Rs.7500/- on a total loss basis. According to the appellant/insurance company the insured computer would fetch only a sum of Rs.8,500/- as the market value. The insurance company relied on Ext.D5 survey report wherein the surveyor has assessed the market value of the insured computer at Rs.8500/-. The surveyor based his estimate on two quotations submitted by two firms by name ETL service computer maintenance group and Infotel Technologies. As per the quotation submitted by ETL service the market rate of 2nd hand personal computer AT486 is Rs.8,500/-. But as per the other quotations the market value of the 2nd hand personal computer AT-486 is taken as Rs.9150/-. It is to be noted that in the aforesaid two quotations the market value is given for 2nd hand system. But there is no whisper in those quotations about the old age of the personal computer AT-486. It is to be noted that the insured computer was only 3 years old. There is nothing on record that the price quoted in those quotations is for a personal computer AT-486 with three years old. So the quotations relied on by the surveyor cannot be accepted as such. 7. On a perusal of D5 survey report with the oral evidence of surveyor as DW2 would give a clear inference that the surveyor has not assessed the market value of the personal computer AT-486 having three years old. The surveyor has simply fixed the market value of the insured personal computer at Rs.8,500/- by simply relying on the quotation submitted by ETL Service Computer Maintenance Group. It is also to be noted that the persons who issued those quotations have not been examined in this case. Thus, in effect there is no acceptable evidence to fix the market value of the insured computer at Rs.8500/-. So, the offer made by the insurance company can only be treated as unacceptable. At any stretch of imagination the sum of Rs.7500/- offered by the insurance company will be far far less when compared to the value of the insured computer which the complainant purchased in the year 1996. The insurance company is not justified in offering a sum of Rs.7,500/- based on D5 survey report. 8. The conditions stipulated in D3 policy of insurance would make it clear that the insurance company had the option to effecting the repairs to the insured computer. But the insurance company did not go for such an option. But they simply offered a sum of Rs.7,500/- as the insurance amount. Thus, in all respects the method adopted by the insurance company would amount to deficiency of service. The materials available on record would show that the insurance claim put-forward by the complainant for Rs.25,250/- is on the higher side and that the insurance amount of R.7,500/- offered by the insurance company was on the lower side. It is to be noted that this complaint is of the year 1999 and the Forum below passed the impugned order in the year 2001 and the appeal came up for final hearing in 2008. No valid purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the Forum below for fresh consideration and disposal. This commission is of the strong view that some method is to be adopted to have a final settlement of the issue involved in this case. Considering all the relevant aspect of the case we are of the view that a sum of Rs.15,000/- can be taken as the reasonable compensation due to the respondent/complainant (insured). There can be no doubt that there will be an element of guess work in fixing the compensation at Rs.15,000/-. There is no other go but to adopt a guess work. It is made clear that the aforesaid sum of Rs.15,000/- will cover the entire claim including the compensation for deficiency of service. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified to the extent as indicated above. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed partly. Thereby the impugned order dated:30..4..2001 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram is modified. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/complainant as compensation. The parties are directed to suffer their costs through out. The aforesaid compensation of Rs.15,000/- is to be paid to the respondent/complainant within one month from this date failing which this amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the complaint in OP:326/99. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL.
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN | | 
