Kerala

Kottayam

CC/234/2010

Jose Kunju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,New India Assurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2011

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station,Kottayam
Kerala
 
CC NO. 234 Of 2010
 
1. Jose Kunju
Propreitor Karakkattu rubbers Palakathakid PO Mukkur Kunnanthanam
Pathanamthitta
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Manager,New India Assurance Co Ltd
Changanasery Branch Changanasery
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas Member
 HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
     Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
                                             Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
 
CC No.234/10
Saturday the 16th day of July, 2011
 
Petitioner                                                          : Jose Kunju,
                                                                         Proprietor,
                                                                         M/s. Karakkattu Rubbers,
                                                                         Palakathakidi PO, Mukkur,
                                                                         Kunnamthanam, Pathanamthitta
                                                                         (Adv. Jacob J.Kottapparambil)
 
                                                                  Vs.
Opposite party                                               : New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,                                                                                     Rep.by its Manager,                                                                                                                 Changancherry Branch
                                                                        Changancherry.
                                                                        (Adv. Sajeevu Mathew)
 
ORDER
 
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
 
            This case is remanded by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as per its order dated 31/8/10 in appeal No.479/09. Appeal is preferred from the order dated 30/6/09 of this Forum in CC 40/08.
            The case of the petitioner is as follows.
            The petitioner had insured his shop with the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for burglary and house breaking. A theft took place in the shop of the petitioner in between 5.30 PM on 10/11/06 and 5 AM on 11/11/06. According to the petitioner he sustained a loss of rubber sheet, pepper and cash of Rs.800/- the total loss was assessed by the petitioner as Rs.95072/-. Police registered a crime. Petitioner preferred a claim to the opposite party but the opposite party proposed to pay an amount of Rs.12800/- and subsequently opposite party enhance the same to Rs. 22,800/- ignoring actual loss of the petitioner. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. Hence the petition.
             Opposite party filed version contending that the surveyor deputed by the opposite party assessed the loss at Rs.22800/- and the opposite party could not pay anything in excess of the amount assessed by the surveyor. Hence there is no deficiency in service. So they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i)                    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii)                   Relifs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext.A1 to A15 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1 to B3 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
            Hon’ble State Commission remanded the case with direction to pass order with proper appreciation of Exts.A12 and A13. Further more Hon’ble State Commission observed that the surveyor had not been examined. After remand of case to this Forum nobody was examined. So, without any proper evidence with regard to loss sustained to the petitioner we are constrained to relay on the report filed by the surveyor appointed by the opposite party. The report filed by the surveyor produced is marked as Ext.B1. The opposite party offered settlement for Rs.22800/-. Here admittedly the opposite party had not followed the regulations of IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interest) regulations 2002. As per regulation 9 of the IRDA on receipt of a communication with regard to the loss and damage the insurer shall give clear indication to insure with regard to the procedures to follow. Further more within 72 hours a surveyor has to be appointed, as per regulation 9(2). The surveyor has to submit his report to the insurer. As per regulation 9(5) on receipt of surveyor report insurer shall process the claim within a period of 30 days. If the insurer for any reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the insured decides to reject a claim under the policy, it shall do so within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of survey report. Regulation 9(6) states that upon acceptance of an offer of settlement as stated in sub-regulations (5) by the insured, payment of the amount due shall be made within seven days from date of acceptance of the offer by the insured. In the case of delay in payment, insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2 percent above bank rate prevalent at the beginning of financial year in which claim is reviewed by it. If the insurer has not complied regulations insurer is entitle for interest at the rate of 2% above the prevailing bank rate of a Nationalized Bank. From Ext.B1 report it can be seen that the date of occurrence of loss was on 10/11/06 and date of survey is on 13/6/07 and the report is dated 25/6/07. From the available records it can be seen that opposite party has not followed IRDA(protection of policy holders interest) regulation 2002, so, act of the opposite party in our view amounts to deficiency in service. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
            In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.
            In the result opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner the offered amount of Rs.22,800/- with 12% interest from 25/6/07 till realisation. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner. Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is ordered. Order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of copy of order other wise petitioner is entitled for 9% interest fro the award amount from the date of order till realisation.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of July, 2011
                       
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President              Sd/-
                       
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                                Sd/-                            
                       
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                                Sd/-
           
Appendix
Documents for the petitioner
Ext.A1-Manoramma paper cutting dtd 12/11/06
Ext.A2-Copy of FIR and FIS
Ext.A3-Unknown report of police submitted before JFMC Thiruvalla
Ext.A4-Copy of license given to the petitioner by the rubber board.
Ext.A5-Copy of insurance copy with conditions of policy
Ext.A6-Settlement intimation dtd 20/8/07
Ext.A7-Settlement intimation dtd 11/9/07
Ext.A8-Office copy of lawyers notice
Ext.A9-Copy of reply notice, copy of postal receipt
Ext.A10-Carbon copy of sales book
Ext.A11-Carbon copy of purchase bill book
Ext.A12-Stock register from 2/4/04 to 11/12/06
Ext.A13-Purchase bills issued by Thomas Varghese&Co.
Ext.A14-Statement of account from 1/4/05 to 20/12/06
Ext.A15-Photogrpahs(5 Nos)
Documents for the opposite parties
Ext.B1-Survey report submitted by Binu Varkey
Ext.B2-Shopkeepers Policy No.760102/48/06/34/00000183
 
 
[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas]
Member
 
[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.