JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP No. 151/2005 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant is that she is running an Internet Café by name Viji Internet Café at Kovalam. She is eking out her livelihood by means of self-employment by running the Internet Café. She is having 7 computers. 5 of the computers were networked for Internet purposes through server client arrangement. The computers were covered by the Electronic Insurance Equipment Policy of the opposite party/respondent. The assured amount was Rs. 5,25,000/- and the premium paid is Rs. 11,042/-. On 21-07-2003 the computers and the monitor got damaged probably due to overflow of electricity. The matter was reported to the opposite parties and claim form obtained on 22-07-2003. The claim was estimated by the authorized service center Indtech Computers, Muttada, Thiruvananthapuram at Rs. 51,350/- on 27-07-2003. The claim was lodged with the opposite parties along with the estimate on 28-07-2003. On 30-07-2003, the complainant contacted the opposite parties over telephone and was instructed to get the computers repaired and keep the changed parts sealed for verification. Opposite parties deputed the Surveyor only on 11-08-2003 after a lapse of nearly 2 weeks. On 23-09-2003 the opposite parties informed that the computers were in a dismantled condition and hence unable to honour the claim. The case that the claim was submitted only on 08-08-2003 is false. The complainant has claimed the cost of repairs of Rs. 51,350/- and compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. In the version the opposite parties were contended that the claim was submitted only on 08-08-2003 and the Surveyor deputed on 11-08-2003 who visited Indtech Computers and found that the damaged parts of the computers were placed in a dismantled condition. As different parts belonged to different computers, it was not possible for the Surveyor to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the damaged parts belonged to the insured computers. The dismantling before the arrival of the Surveyor is a breach of policy condition. The Surveyor has assessed the value of repairs with the dismantled parts shown at Rs. 31,200/-. The opposite parties had also informed the complainant vide letter dated 20-10-2003 to request the repairer to keep the computers in an identifiable manner and to complete the survey in their presence. The same was not done. Repudiation was intimated to the complainant by letter dated 11-03-2004, which was returned unserved. 4. We find that Ext.D4 is the claim form of which the corner of the bottom portion wherein the date is to be noted is seen torn off. As noted by the Forum, Ext.D4 was in the custody of the opposite party. DW1, the father of the complainant has testified that the date was noted therein by him as 28-07-2003. The Forum has also noted that DW2, the official of the opposite party has admitted that there is no register kept showing the dates of issue and receipt of the claim forms. All the same, the Forum has relied on the evidence of the opposite party in this regard, which we find cannot be sustained. 5. DW1, the Surveyor has testified that he assessed the value of dismantled parts as indicated by the service center representative. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party has no case that the claim is a fabricated one and the damage to the computers did not happen as alleged by the complainant. It is contended by the Counsel for the respondent/Insurance company that it is subsequently provided in the policy conditions that repairs or replacement with respect to minor damages not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- can only be carried out without the inspection by a representative of the company before any repairs or alterations are affected. On a perusal of the policy conditions, we find that the same is a very lengthy document containing 4 pages in small prints. Ofcourse, the complainant ought to have got the instructions in the matter from the insurer before the equipments were handed over to the repairers. Perhaps the complainant was motivated to do so as she was running an outfit, which has to be run continuously. All the same, in view of the fact that the opposite parties have no case that the claim is a fabricated one, it was not proper to totally repudiate the claim. We find that the insurer is liable to pay at least 75% of the amount assessed by the Surveyor. The amount assessed by the Surveyor is Rs. 31,200/-. 75% of the same would be Rs. 23,400/-. The respondent/insurer is directed to pay the above amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint (12-05-2005) and also costs of Rs. 3,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed as above. The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Sr. |
