IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of June, 2011
Filed on 26.02.2009
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.96/09
Between
Complainant:- `Opposite Parties:-
Smt.Geetha Sivadas, 1. The Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd.,
W/o Sivadas, (Branch Office), Bank Road, Kayamkulam.
Charutha,
Neerettupuram, 2. The General Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Thalavady. Regd. And Head Office – 24,
(By Adv.K.A.Nazar) Whites Road, Madras.
(By Adv.C.Muraleedharan)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainants’ case is as follows: - The complainant is the owner of the textile shop namely 'Charutha Textiles'. The complainant availed a policy from the opposite party for the fabric materials and other articles in the shop. On 13th May 2003, 1 A.M, a break-in theft was committed in the complainant's shop. The shop breakers took away an amount of Rs.38,000/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand only) and textile articles worth Rs.5,75,878/-(Rupees five lacs seventy five thousand eight hundred seventy eight only) from the shop. The Edathua Police registered a case, and a charge sheet was lodged to the effect that the complainant sustained a loss of goods worth Rs.2 lacs and hard cash of Rs.38,000/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand only). Immediately after the theft was unveiled, the complainant informed the factum of burglary to the opposite party, and approached the opposite party with material records for compensation, subject to the terms and condition of the policy. But the opposite party vide letter 12th October 2010 offered only Rs.4l,734/-(Rupees forty one thousand seven hundred and thirty four only). The same is the outright violation against the terms of the policy issued by the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to make good the entire loss the complainant sustained. Got aggrieved on the act and omission on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. According to the opposite party, on receiving the intimation of burglary in the complainant's shop, the Insurance Surveyor was promptly appointed. He duly verified the goods, stock, bills and vouchers. The surveyor assessed the loss of textile goods to Rs.49,026/-(Rupees forty nine thousand and twenty six only). Thereafter, subject to the terms of the policy, compensation amount of Rs.41,734/-(Rupees forty one thousand seven hundred and thirty four only) was duly sent for vouching on 12th October 2010. The complainant has approached this Forum on suppressing the material particulars. The complaint is vexatious, and the complainant is disentitled to any relief, the opposite party forcefully contends. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost and compensatory cost to the opposite party, the opposite party asserts.
2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Exbts. Al to A7 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, its Divisional Manager filed proof affidavit, and the documents Exbts. B1 to B3 were marked.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties the questions that arise for consideration before us are:-
(a) Whether the complainant sustained any loss in the theft as claimed by him?
(b) If any, whether the opposite party is liable to pay the same?
4. It is not in dispute rather admitted by the opposite party that the complainant is the holder of Shop Keepers Insurance Policy. Similarly, it is also not disputed that the complainant's shop was subjected to break-in theft in the dead of the night on 13th May 2003. Going by the pleadings and other materials, it appears that the crux of the contention is with regard to the quantum of loss the complainant sustained. In as much as the complainant is concerned, the complainant, in the midnight burglary sustained a loss of garments worth Rs.5,75,878/-(Rupees five lacs seventy five thousand eight hundred and seventy eight only). But, according to the opposite parties the actual loss assessed by its surveyor is mere an amount of Rs.49,026/-(Rupees forty nine thousand and twenty six only). Keeping in view, the contentions of the parties, we effected a searching survey of the materials placed on record by the complainant and the opposite party. On closer scrutiny of Exbt.A4 Final Report, it is clearly revealed that the complainant has suffered a loss of textile article worth Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lacs only) and Rs.38,000/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand only) in hard cash. In this context, it is to be born in mind that the complainant's contention as to the loss he sustained is articles worth Rs.5,75,878/-(Rupees five lacs seventy five thousand eight hundred and seventy eight only) which is higher than what is stated in the Exbt.A4 final report. On the other hand, according to the opposite party, the complainant sustained a mere loss of Rs.49,026/-(Rupees forty nine thousand and twenty six only) in the incident in question. Carefully analyzing the evidence let in by the parties, we are of the view that, no material available on record that substantiate to the hilt, the key contentions of both the parties. However, we remind ourselves that we are obliged to appreciate the available materials to the extent the same evince the case of the parties. To put it clearly, going by Exbt.A4 Final Report it is positively revealed that the complainant has to sustain a loss of clothing article worth Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lacs only) and Rs.38,000/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand only) in hard cash from the drawer of the table. We are of the view that the complainant has failed to produce sufficient materials to prove particularly the extent of loss as claimed by the complainant. In the same manner, the opposite party, it appears that adopts no meaningful steps to bear out that the complainant underwent a mere loss of article or cash worth the amount Rs.41,734/-(Rupees forty one thousand seven hundred and thirty four only). In this context, we are persuaded to hold that the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lacs only), the value of the stolen textile articles and another Rs.38,000/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand only) taken away in hard cash as is evidenced by the materials available on record.
Resultantly, the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,38,000/(Rupees two lacs thirty eight thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of submitting claim application by the complainant before the opposite party. Towards compensation the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only). We are of the considered view that this will serve the purpose. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
The complaint is allowed to the said extent.
For the forgoing discussion the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Geetha Sivadas (Witness)
Ext. A1 - Copy of Advocate Notice dated, 02.11.04, Postal Order and Acknowledgment
Ext. A2 - Copy of the Mahassar dated, 13.05.03
Ext. A3 - Copy of the Charge Sheet dated, 16.02.04
Ext. A4 series - Copy of the Final Report dated, 13.05.03 (18 pages)
Ext. A5 - Statement of Stock Position as dated, 12.05.03, 13.05.03
Ext.A6 series - Copy of Judgments dated, 10.07.07 and 10.05.07 (2 Nos.)
Ext. A7 - Copy of Trading, Profit and Loss Account for the year ended 31.03.03
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext. B1 - Copy of the section vise Premium details
Ext. B2 - Copy of the Final Survey Report dated, 05.04.04
Ext. B3 - Copy of the Theft claim under Shopkeepers’ Policy dated 07.12.04
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
