KERALA   STATE   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL

COMMISSION   VAZHUTHACAUD,   THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NOS.177/09 & 503/2009

        COMMON JUDGMENT DATED:22-11-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU                            :PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                                  : MEMBER

APPEAL  NO.177/2009

V.R.Baby, W/o B.R.Balaraman,

Barath House, Kasthurba Lane,                                                : APPELLANT

Koorkancherry, Thrissur.

(By Adv.Sri.S.Reghukumar)

            Vs.

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Thrissur Branch, R/by Branch Manager,                     : RESPONDENT

Ambika Arcade, M.G.Road, Thrissur.

(By Adv.Sri.Sijo George)

APPEAL  NO.503/2009

National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Thrissur Branch, R/by Branch Manager,                    

Ambika Arcade, M.G.Road, Thrissur.

                                                                                                : APPELLANT

(Appellant R/by The Deputy Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Divisional Office No.1, St. Joseph’s Press

Building, Vazhuthacadu, TVPM)

(By Adv.Sri.M.Nizamudeen)

            Vs.

V.R.Baby, W/o B.R.Balaraman,

Bharath House, Kasthurba Lane,                                  : RESPONDENT

Koorkkencherry, Thrissur.

(By Adv.Sri.T.L.Sreeram)

COMMON JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

The appellant in A.177/09 is the complainant and the appellants in A.503/09 are the respondents/insurance company in OP.96/03 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.  The opposite parties/insurance company is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,463/- and cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.

2. The grievance of the complainant in A.177/09 is that the matter has been disposed of after a lapse of about 6 years and yet no interest has been awarded.  It is also pointed out that the opposite parties had not offered or tendered any amount prior to the filing of the complaint.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the Cielo car owned by him was damaged in a fire accident.  The repair cost as per the estimate of the manufacturer amounted to Rs.3,80,000/-.  The opposite parties have offered only Rs.1.25.lakhs.  The vehicle has been insured for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-. The complainant has claimed the above amount and interest at 18% and damages of Rs.10,000/-.

4. The opposite parties have filed version denying that the manufacturer has estimated the repair cost as Rs.3.8.lakhs.  It is also denied that the sum of Rs.1.25.lakhs was offered.  According to the opposite party the surveyor has estimated the loss at Rs.1,10,000/- only.  The date of accident is 20/11/2002.  The vehicle is an old one ie six years and 8 months old.

5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1, Exts.P1 and P2 and R1 to R8.

6. PW1 is service advisor of St. Antony’s Automobiles who are the dealers of the vehicle.  He has stated that a new Ceilo car would cost Rs.6,58,000/- during 2000-2003.   A vehicle of 1996 make during the above period can get a 2^nd hand value of 1.25 to 1.5. lakhs.  The production of the vehicle has been stopped in 2001.  RW1 is the surveyor who has filed Ext.C1 survey report.  The surveyor has estimated the cost of repairs at Rs.1,86,463/-.  He has also suggested Rs.65,000/- as the resale of the vehicle.  He has stated that the value of the car in 1996 would be around Rs.4.lakhs.  The Forum has directed to pay the repair cost as assessed by the surveyor.

7. The appellant in A.503/09 insurance company has contended that the amount awarded is excessive.  On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant has sought for interest on the amount awarded.  Evidently the vehicle is an old one.  The production of the vehicle has also been stopped.  Hence resale value is likely to be low.  PW1, the complainant’s witness himself has stated that the 2^nd hand value would be around Rs.1.25.lakhs to 1.5.lakhs for a 1996 model Ceilo car.  The above amount is less than the repair cost.  Hence the complainant is entitled only for the 2^nd hand sale value for the vehicle especially in view of the fact that the vehicle is a very old one.

In the circumstances the order of the Forum is modified.  The opposite parties/insurance company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint ie 18/2/2003.  Opposite parties also would be liable to pay cost of Rs.5000/-.  The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from today ie 22/11/2010, the date of this order.

In the result both the appeals are allowed in part.

Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER

VL.